Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-09-07 Packet CITY OF UKIAH CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Regular Meeting CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 September 7, 2005 5:15 p.m. 5:15 p.m.: CLOSED SESSION: CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR~ Government Code ~54957.6 Employee Negotiations: Directors Negotiator: Candace Horsley 6:00 p.m. 1. ROLL CALL 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. PROCLAMATIONS a. September 2005: 85th Anniversary of the 19th Amendment b. Proclaiming September 24, 2005 as Green Living Day w APPROVAL OF MINUTES a. Regular Meeting Minutes of June 1,2005 b. Special Meeting Minutes of June 8, 2005 - Goals & Objectives Workshop c. Regular Meeting Minutes of June 15, 2005 d. Joint Meeting Minutes of the City Council & Ukiah Valley Sanitation District of June 27, 2005 Adjourned Regular Meeting of June 27-28, 2005 - Budget Hearing Regular Meeting Minutes of July 6, 2005 Regular Meeting Minutes of August 3, 2005 e, 1 1 RIGHT TO APPEAL DECISION Persons who are dissatisfied with a decision of the City Council may have the right to a review of that decision by a court. The City has adopted Section 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, which generally limits to ninety days (90) the time within which the decision of the City Boards and Agencies may be judicially challenged. CONSENT CALENDAR The following items listed are considered routine and will be enacted by a single motion and roll call vote by the City Council. Items may be removed from the Consent Calendar upon request of a Councilmember or a citizen in which event the item will be considered at the completion of all other items on the agenda. The motion by the City Council on the Consent Calendar will approve and make findings in accordance with Administrative Staff and/or Planning Commission recommendations. a. Notification To Council Regarding The Award Of Bid For Two Electrical Vault Collars And Lids In The Amount Of $7,700.55 b. Notification To Council Regarding The Award Of Bid For 4,500 Ft. Of #2 AWG Aluminum, 15KV, EPR Insulated Single Conductor, Jacketed Concentric Neutral, Underground Cable To The Okonite Company In The Amount Of $5,970.61 c. Rejection of Claims for Damages Received from Kathleen Ellis and Referral to Joint Powers Authority, Redwood Empire Municipal Insurance Fund Page 1 of 3 d. Notification of Budgeted Purchase Award to Geo. E. Honn Co., Inc. in the Amount of $6,381.38 for a Voltage/Current Meter-Recorder with Power and Harmonics Recording Capability, and One Set of 24" Flex Current Transformers e. Notification of Budgeted Purchase Award to Marsh-McBirney Corporation in the Amount of $9,309.30 for Two FIo-Mate Velocity Meters f. Notification Of Budgeted Bid Award To Canon USA In The Amount Of $8,363.49 For the Purchase of Non-Video Camera Equipment With Pipe Accessories g. Reject All Bids For Four Wheel Drive Pick Up h. Authorization For City Manager to Sign Airport Layout Plan Documents i. Notification to the City Council Concerning the Emergency Replacement of a Heating/Air Conditioning Unit on the Flight Service Station Building at the Ukiah Regional Airport in the Amount of $5,820.71 j. Adoption of Policy Resolution Amending Council Meeting Procedures to Change the Starting of Public Hearings k. Notification to the City Council Regarding the Removal and Replacement of the Effluent Piping at Well #3 by Wipf Construction for a Price not to Exceed $9,200.00 I. Report of the Acquisition of Services from John's Excavating for Removal of Underground Storage Tanks in the Amount of $6,785.89 and Approve Budget Amendment in the Amount of $6,785.89 m. Authorization of Expenditure of $27,288 for Environmental Compliance Services at the Ukiah Solid Waste Disposal Site n. Award of Bid for Various Size Pole Mount and Pad Mount Transformers in the Amount of $51,501.23 o. Request for Approval of Economic Development Manager/Assistant to the City Manager Job Description and Salary Classification p. Report to City Council Regarding the Annual Purchase of Fertilizer, Grass Seed, Insecticide, and Fungicide from Sierra Pacific Turf Supply for the Ukiah Municipal Golf Course in the Amount of $8,408.03 q. Report to City Council Regarding the Annual Purchase of 50 Tons of Top Dressing Sand and 50 Tons of #20 Deep Coring Sand for the Ukiah Municipal Golf Course from Borges Transfer in the Amount of $5,583.82 r. Approval of Final Subdivision Map for W oodbury Major Subdivision s. Report to City Council Regarding the Purchase of Three Itron Fc200 Hand Held Data Collectors and Communication Cradles from National Meter & Automation 7. AUDIENCE COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS The City Council welcomes input from the audience. If there is a matter of business on the agenda that you are interested in, you may address the Council when this matter is considered. If you wish to speak on a matter that is not on this agenda, you may do so at this time. In order for everyone to be heard, please limit your comments to three (3) minutes per person and not more than ten (10) minutes per subject. The Brown Act regulations do not allow action to be taken on audience comments in which the subject is not listed on the agenda. ag PUBLIC HEARING (6:45 P.M.) a. Continuance of Minor Subdivision Map-Subdivision Requirement Exception No. 05-19 b. Consideration and Direction Concerning the Planning Commission's Recommended Revisions to the City Sign Regulations The City of Ukiah complies with ADA requirements and will attempt to reasonably accommodate individuals with disabilities upon request. Sm NEW BUSINESS a. Discussion and Direction Regarding Application of LAFCO Policy to Annexation of Property in Brush Street Triangle b. Discussion and Possible Appointment of Representative to the Mendocino Library Board c. Discussion Concerning Various Inland Water and Power Commission Issues d. Discussion and Possible Approval of Settlement Agreement- Ford Street/Sidnie Court Neighbors e. Discussion and Possible Approval of Settlement Agreement: Northern California River Watch v. City of Ukiah 10. COUNCIL REPORTS 11. CITY MANAGER/CITY CLERK REPORTS 12. CLOSED SESSION a. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL- EXISTING LITIGATION Ukiah v. Mattem, Mendocino Superior Court No. SCUK CVG 0594844 b. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL- EXISTING LITIGATION FordSt./Sidnie Court Neighbors v. Ukiah, Mendo. S.C. No. SCUKCV 05-94063- 003 C, CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL, - EXISTING LITIGATION - Northern California River Watch v. City of Ukiah, Federal District Court, Northern District of California, CASE NO: C04 4518 CW 13. COUNCIL REPORTS 15. CITY MANAGER/CITY CLERK REPORTS 16.ADJOURNMENT TO SPECIAL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 147 2005 COMMENCING AT 4:00 P.M. AT THE UKIAH VALLEY CONFERENCE CENTER I hereby certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing agenda was posted on the bulletin board at the main entrance of the City of Ukiah City Hall, located at 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, California, not less than 72 hours prior to the meeting set forth on this agenda. Dated this 2nd day of September, 2005. Marie Ulvila, City Clerk Page 3 of 3 ~HE~S, On .,Itt.qtts126, 1920, lite IV* ~Imendmenl lo the .g,~ited ,qtale.v (~nstilulion u,as passed, granffn~ wom~ the tq~hI to vote; therqfore, ~HE~S, women st~'agisls inchtdigq ..t#~ Paul u~lto~ugh(~r and u,on lite r{~Id of women 1o role, shottM be re.vpecled ottd honored for ~~~S, part qf the mission of ~lm~cmt .]sso~ation qf ~qahtrda~ .~flerttoott Clttb (~/!(9 is 1o promote eqtmliDj for oH women and e~teoura~ed wome~t Io Inke ~dvanltt~e ~ll~elr ~hl Io role Io make lh~r ro~ces' heard; and l~'omen ~' Polilie~i (~ueus, and ~a~o'da~ ~e~soon ~ U~!le lite ~mmm.'~j }oin IMs s'alule Io wom~ ~ai~i.~ ll~e ri~Itl Io vole, and lo e~t~ttrn~e alldpromole lite celebrttlion ~['lhe achierem~tls tj'all women lo our eeo.omit, civic, nnd cullural pmT~oses; and ~H~~N, on S~temb~' ~, ~00~5 the public i~' it~v#ed lo .fi'ee s]totvin~ q]'#~e moDTo~ pieho'e, "[rot~ .]au,ed .~elx, ' al 6:0(~m ~0~ ~E~~~ L .,Work ~.tshiktt, .Jla!lot of lhe CiO/qf on behn~f my. fellou~ CiO/(~uncil,Wembers, Phil Baldwin, .;lnri Rodin, .loire .;IcCowen, and ~tt~ Crone do Itereby proclaim the mmttlt qf Sq~lember lo re~t~e and celebrate lite and urge aH resitI~tls lo pm'licilmle in the scheduled ev~tL Dale: 005 .~lm'k . Zvh iku, .~Wa!lor SAV THE DATE Sept. 23TH Iron Jawed Angels A stunning HBO original picture that recounts a key chapter in U.S. history · the struggle for voting rights for women. Starring Academy Award Winner Hilary Swank, Angelica Huston, Julia Ormond, and Frances O'Conner. A Celebration of the 85th Anniversary of the ratification of the 19th Amendment and a MOVIE at Ukiah Civic Center Event Co-sponsors (partial list) : The City of Ukiah, The National Women's Political Caucus of Mendocino (NWPC), The American Association of University Women (AAUW), Soroptimist International of Yokayo Sunrise (SlYS) and the Saturday Afternoon Club. Information call Katarzyna Rolzinski at 468-9003 Free street parking, and public lots located at the Ukiah Civic Ceter300 Seminary Ave in Ukiah Friday, September 23th, 6:00pm Ukiah Civic Center. Admission is FREE! · 300 Seminary Ave. Ukiah, CA ff'HE~$, lite L~'ialt l'~lle~d is rich in natural resources attd has on envirottmett! ntdik¢ any other, attd those resources need lo beprotected and preserved with the goal o. f e~tcironntetttal attd economic s~r~taittabi, liDj; attd ff'HE~$, the Ntate of Cal~for~tio pt~motes the.qoal of"Zero- where the public, i~tdnstry, nnd.qovern~tenl s~6ve to reduce, tense, or re, cie protects human health and the e:ivh'onmenl while honoring lheprindple,, qf (~lffornia ~ Integrated l~le .41nnog~tvtl .,lcl; and ~HEIIE./I$, there are ecologically responsible, econotnlcal options avoilablc~r ~tearly evo~j choice we make and an ~goged ~rl s'houM be made toward, z'ero waste by desig~iing waste out of the &qs~em wh~ever possible and th~verl di.~7~osables lhrongh compostittg, reclaimi~tg, red~tcing, rensi~tg, nnd reclFli~q/; o:td ff'HE~$, Et~plooza 2005 att Neptember 24 bt the.Ilex R. T~oma~ Plaz'tt celebrates lhe spirit of"Green I~,i~tg Do!! ~ tt'hich raises awarene&~ of environmental issues attd ecological preserration. JVOIW THEREFORE, L .Wark,tshikn, .,Wayor of the Cibj of [ kiah, on beha(f of mgfellow Cil)j Contwll .'Wembers, Phil Baldwin, ~}lat~ Roditt, John ,'WcCowen, and Dong Crane do herebtj proclaim September 24, 2005 os GREE V LII 'I VG attd nrge all residettls lo parlicipate itt lite schednled event attd lo make practical et~logical choices thronghon! the year itt order lo live itt harmotql Date: Nepte~nber 200.5 " }lark "tsh iktt"]latJ°lI ~ MEMO Agenda Item: 4a TO: FROM: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers City Clerk Marie Ulvila ~ SUBJECT: City Council Minutes of June 1,2005 DATE: September 2, 2005 Every effort will be made to provide Council with a copy of the Draft minutes for the June 1, 2005 no later than Tuesday, September 6, 2005 (Monday, Sept. 5th is a holiday and City Hall will be closed) Memos: CC Late Minutes MEMO Agenda Item: 4b TO: FROM: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers City Clerk Marie Ulvila ~ SUBJECT: City Council Minutes of June 8, 2005 DATE: September 2, 2005 Every effort will be made to provide Council with a copy of the Draft minutes for the June 8, 2005 no later than Tuesday, September 6, 2005 (Monday, Sept. 5th is a holiday and City Hall will be closed) Memos: CC Late Minutes MINUTES OF THE UKIAH CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING WEDNESDAY, June 15, 2005 The Ukiah City Council met at a Regular Meeting on June 15, 2005, the notice for which had been legally noticed, at 6:10 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, California. 1. ROLL CALL- Present: Councilmembers Crane, Ashiku. Absent: Councilmember Baldwin. Staff present: Electric Supervisor Bartolomei, DeKnoblough, City Manager Horsley, Water Treatment Director McCann, City Attorney Rapport, Deputy Public Works Director Seanor, and City CI Ucl ~rvlces Rodin, and Mayor ity Services Director 'isor Jamison, Finance rvisor Sangiacomo, 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Everyone recited the Pledge of Allegiance. 6:10 p.m.: Presentation from 101 Corridor Interchange Study Deputy Public Works Director Governments (MCOG) established a Year 2004-2005 to conduct the Route its Rec the Route the Mendocino Council of I Work Program for Fiscal ar Mr. Arul Edwin, As Consultants, provi as provided in Brush Street to ~anta He als, tranch M ager of TJKM Transportation the Route 101 Corridor Interchange Study, the possibility of hook ramps at Phil D~ is a his the State S ate that $1 that funded the study. He also stated that this be approached with resources on a regional basis. It was be needed for traffic mitigation fees. He noted that joint funding with the County, particularly on North 6:35 p.m.: ned to dar meeting session of the City Council agenda. 3. INTRODU{ PROCLAMATION 3a. Introduction Water Treatment Employee~ Paul Zellman Water Treatment Plant Supervisor Jamison introduced Paul Zellman, the Public Utilities Department's newest water treatment employee and discussed his employment background. 3. INTRODUCTIONS/PROCLAMATION 3b. Proclamation: "Recognition of Gay Pride Week" Councilmember Rodin read the Proclamation designating June 12-19, 2005 as "Gay Pride Week in the City of Ukiah". Regular Ukiah City Council Meeting June 15, 2005 Page 1 of 7 Jody Cole accepted the Proclamation on behalf of the Pride Alliance Network. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 4a. Re_clular Meetin_~ Minutes of April 207 2005 Mayor Ashiku advised the minutes of April 20, 2005 would be continued. 5. RIGHT TO APPEAL DECISION Mayor Ashiku read the appeal process. 6. CONSENT CALENDAR M/S McCowen/Rodin approving items "a" through "d" of a. Approved Disbursements for Month of May b. Awarded Bid to Spinlab Utility Instrumentatk ~ Bird Dog Plus Analyzer in the Amount of $ c. Authorized the City Manager to Nec Services Agreement with Brown and Urban Water Management Plan for an Rejected All Bids and Authorize Acquisitk The Purchase of a 2006 50' D er-Derrick Industries, Inc. in the Amount d, ;ent Calendar as follows: ase of the 6000 Into a Pr( al Consulting ;11 to Upd~ £e the City h's 2002 $33,85 Purchasing 'Method 4300 4 x 2 to Altec 756.58. Motion carried by the following roll Rodin, and Mayor Ashiku. NOES: Nc Baldwin. ~embers Crane, McCowen, Councilmember 7. AUDIENCE Benj Thomas ~ended the A ITEMS Iy in opposing hate crimes. 8. PUB 8a. n, the Golf 2~ Next year's likely rE a General F for the Ukiah Municipal Golf Course ih discussed his Staff Report to Council and ected to lose approximately $42,000 in Fiscal Year ~ut a fee increase, reflects a $60,388 deficit which will ~'. Comm~ 'ices S~ Sangiacomo provided a presentation to Council with regard to the Course fee adjustments. He provided a budget history of the Golf Course, how Council and Staff have dealt with the decline in revenue at the Golf Course, a fee schedule analysis, discussed the fee comparison spreadsheet, discussed how a better balance is needed in the fees charged for golf, and focusing discounts that promote play during Iow demand periods. He summarized the differences between the three scenarios presented by Staff. He explained that the fee subcommittee of the Men's and Women's Golf Clubs were most supportive of Scenario #3 as it provided the greatest amount of revenue while retaining a fair and equitable discount for the annual fee. Staff is recommending Council adopt the Resolution for Scenario #3. Discussion followed with regard to: · Comparison of fee schedules of other Golf Courses in Northern California areas Regular Ukiah City Council Meeting June 15, 2005 Page 2 of 7 · Comparison of the three scenarios proposed by Staff · Review of the Golf Course revenue and expenses · Drainage issues at the Golf Course and lack of funds for the repairs Public Hearing Opened: 7:25 p.m. Members of the public that spoke to the issue and/or offered suggestions were: Faye Heffe, Don Crawford, Hal Bray, Mickey Pope, Henry Carmich~ and Julie Dunn Members of the public that spoke against the fee increase £ric Barkhurst (President of the Men's Golf Club), Tom Simmons, Don Rones, and Roland Nielsen. suggestions were: stein, Tony Latronica, Joe Chiles, Men's Golf Club representative Commission, advised that due to his work com on the Commission. He recommended that to support the Golf Course since it is a t sponsorship of the Golf Course and/or activities Parks, and Golf ,nts, he will no Ion~ able to serve should the for funds He also ded or businesses. Public Hearing Closed: 8:26 Council continued to discuss the audience comments rec~ uring th, !d by Staff as well as the the meeting. Public Hearing Ree equest ~uncilmember Crane. Robert Reid ~ded po,, refinan~ Ihe back 9 holes. Eric from the new fees. Publi Disc continued b~ Communit rvices Dir~ to create an and Staff with regard to current and proposed fees. DeKnoblough explained that the new rates are expected ue of approximately 30%. Public Hearing ;:45 p.m. Further discussion was had with regard to the fiscal stability of the Golf Course, Staff's recommendations, and consideration of recommendations and comments made by the public. It was the general concern of Council that the Golf Course needs to stay out of debt and plan for maintenance improvements. It was noted that approximately $50,000 of additional revenue per year is needed for the Golf Course to stay out of debt. This does not include improvements necessary for the Course. There was a general consensus of Council that the Golf Course should be self supporting. Consideration was given to not Regular Ukiah City Council Meeting June 15, 2005 Page 3 of 7 increasing the rates for senior citizens or juniors. There was a brief discussion concerning refinancing. M/S Rodin/McCowen adopting Resolution 2005-48 incorporating Scenario #2 and providing for a senior annual rate of $1,000 for couples for Monday through Thursday play. City Attorney Rapport recommended the terms, such as "limited", "unlimited", "Monday through Thursday", "juniors", and the age considered for a "senio~ :itizen" be defined in the resolution. Councilmembers Rodin and McCowen agreed with ~'s recommendation. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYE~ Rodin, and Mayor Ashiku. NOES: None. AB: Baldwin. AB~ Crane, McCowen, Councilmember Recessed: 9:18 p.m. Reconvened: 9:32 p.m. Adjourned to the Redevelo Reconvened as the City Council: ': 9:32 p. 8. PUBLIC HEARING 8b. Ado of R~ Cultivation Environme City Attorney Ordinance No. 106' the City. marijuar C( considerati June 2005, and morato inance Governml modification,, ~e ordin, compliance wit: inance ative Moratorium on Outdoor ;laration Under California that o 4, 2005, the City Council adopted m on outdoor cultivation of marijuana in anent regulations on the cultivation of :he PI~ :ommission. The Planning Commission and has formulated a recommendation for the City 2005 meeting. The temporary moratorium expires on recommended that the City Council extend the ay 4 by 10 months and 15 days to May 3, 2006, as Code Section 65858(a). He also recommended two to delete the limit of six (6) plants per parcel and revise how is expressed in the ordinance. Public Hearing Op~ I: 9:45 p.m. Members of the public that spoke in support of the proposed Ordinance were: Mark Oswell, Tina Gordon, Dina Ortiz, Ragene Brown, Larry Puterbaugh, and Molly Hart. Members of the public that spoke against the Ordinance were: Dane Wilkins of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), Pebbles Trippet (Medical Marijuana Patients Union), Greg Shipper, and Sowbug. Public Hearing Closed: 10:22 p.m. Regular Ukiah City Council Meeting June 15, 2005 Page 4 of 7 Discussion followed with regard to placing a limitation on the number of plants per parcel or per qualified patient. There was also discussion concerning caregivers and what size greenhouse would need a permit. Councilmember McCowen recommended limiting cultivation to six (6) plants per parcel per patient in residential areas. Mayor Ashiku discussed his concern for the public's safety as acts involving the growing of marijuana in the City limits. It plants allowed per parcel, the greater nuisance it presents )ted by recent criminal opinion that the more M/S Crane/Rodin adopting Negative Declaration; AYES' Councilmembers Crane, McCowen, Rodin ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Councilmember Bal~ roll call vote: ku. NOES: None. M/S McCowen/Crane adding an amendm, immature plants grown indoors, which inclu< and CN Zoning Districts of the City of Ukiah, extending the moratorium on outd~ cultivatio Ordinance 1070 revising and (Urgency Ordinance of the City Moratorium on the outdoor growing feet of schools within the City of Uki Councilmembers Crane ~n, Ro~ None. ABSENT: Co~ the Ci' Section to allow mature or on lots in , R2, R3, the Ordinance revising and ~rijuana, and adopting Urgency cultivation of marijuana Ukiah imposing an Interim of marijuana within 300 g roll call vote: AYES: NOES: None. ABSTAIN: 8. PUBLIC H lNG 8c. Considerati, Mi on' City ado dis Corr dispen,, sche~ will not be ir time period. ries in the the The 45-da Council m~ of Ordinance Im ' Iries .ined that May 18, 2005 meeting, the City Council ~1 a 45 day moratorium on medical marijuana The City Council also referred to the Planning permanent regulations for medical marijuana will expire on July 2, 2005, before the next regularly on July 6, 2005. It is virtually certain that the City Council )pt permanent regulations before the expiration of the 45-day recommends the City Council exercise its authority under Government Cod~ 65858(a) to extend the moratorium for 10 months and 15 days to May 17, 2006. does not recommend any changes to the existing Ordinance, so the extension can be approved by a motion and does not require the adoption of a new Ordinance. The interim Ordinance was determined to be categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Public Hearing Opened: 10:37 p.m. Dane Wilkins, Northern California Director of National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), read a prepared statement that was entered into the record and Regular Ukiah City Council Meeting June 15, 2005 Page 5 of 7 requested Council form a citizens' advisory board to work toward a solution to this problem and provide options for Council's consideration. Public Hearing Closed: 10:20 pm M/S Rodin/McCowen extending Ordinance No. 1069, enacting a temporary moratorium on medical marijuana dispensaries, to May 17, 2006; carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Crane, McCowen, Rodin, and Mayor NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Councilmember Baldwin. 9. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 9a. Consideration and Possible Action Conc~ ' Between Mendocino County Inland Water and Cord of EnQineers City Attorney Rapport discussed his Staff R communication prepared by Tony Rossma Commission (IWPC) that raised concerns w~ contamination. The Army Corps of Engineers He requested Council direct the City ~ti version of the local sponsor a( in the Staff Report. reement ion and Arm, Council and for he Inland on a recent and Power agreeme~ ing with ~e City's additional concerns. IWPC to vote in favor of Staff's Feasibility Study, as contained Considerable discussion followed with · Obtaining a to before ag · The IWPC River FII · The cost esti~ local sp and ,trol Distri applie of concern included: would be to the City felt it will have priority though the Russian extra water from Lake Mendocino It was ti be [ed. upon rec, endation of the City Attorney, for staff to of the IWPC on how the additional water right will 10. City Man~ Authority's CIL REP, pr an update on the Mendocino Solid Waste Management g garbage and recycling efforts in Ukiah. Mayor Ashiku r, representatives frorr bid documents. that he and Councilmember Crane met with City Staff and and Caldwell and reviewed the Wastewater Treatment Plant 11. CITY MANGER/CITY CLERK REPORTS City Manager Horsley provided Council with a design of Ukiah Grows the Arts brochure. City Clerk Ulvila stated that she has been investigating the purchase of new recording equipment for the City Council and Planning Commission meetings. Regular Ukiah City Council Meeting June 15, 2005 Page 6 of 7 City Manager Horsley reported on the recent resignation of the City's building inspector and efforts to improve service with this position in cooperation with other City departments. Adjourned to Closed Session:l 1:10 p.m. 12. CLOSED SESSION a. Conference with Labor Negotiator G.C. ,{54957.6 City Designated Representative: Candace H Employee Organization: Management b. Conference with L~ al Coun,, (Government Code Section River Watch v. City of Ukiah, C0404518 CW (N.D. Ca/.) c. Conference with - ANTII (Government Code Secti~ Initiation of litigation (1 Reconvened: 1:00 a.m. City Manager Exi', ation Case No. LITIGATION M/S McCowen/Crane agreeing to Joint Repre Sanitation District and Jarvis, an~ the agreement on behalf of the by Councilmembers Crane, McCowen,' None. ABSENT: Councilmember Bald Agreement with Ukiah Valley · ' the City Manager to sign roll call vote: AYES: NOES: None. ABSTAIN: M/S McCowen :he Cil requested; the fol ng roll McCowen, Mayor iku. N( Councilmember Ba to fi and prosecute legal action as II vote: AYES: Councilmembers Crane, None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: 13. Th~ 2005 at 8:0( the City Council meeting was adjourned at 1:05 a.m. to -2006 Budget Public Hearings. Marie UIv Clerk Regular Ukiah City Council Meeting June 15, 2005 Page 7 of 7 MINUTES OF THE UKIAH CITY COUNCIL Special Joint Meeting of the Ukiah City Council And Ukiah Valley Sanitation District BUDGET SESSION Monday, June 27, 2005 The Ukiah City Council met at a Special Joint Meeting with District (UVSD) on June 27, 2005, the notice for which posted, at 2:05 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers. California. Roll was taken and the following Counci McCowen, Rodin, and Mayor Ashiku. Councilmember Water-Utilities/Project Engineer Burck, Wastewater Horsley, City Attorney Rapport, Public Utilities Di Ukiah Valley Sanitation District Board rs District Board Chairman Delbar was County Chief Deputy Counsel Zotter, and Depu Rau. ianek, ent: Wattent Also pres~ dah Valley Sanitation gaily noticed and Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, present: Crane, Staff present: City Manager Clerk Ulvila. Crane. Secretary Public Utilities Director Ziemianek of Ukiah budget as it pertains to the a( City/District Sewer Construction, Sewe and the Ukiah Valley Sanitation District C~ ;d an the e proposed 2005-2006 City Treatment Plant, Special accounts, htS. Discussion followed · M~ ~e City General system a( Pos" the lir holes that n [rict following et round system ipment emianek plans to discuss initiating an with County Counsel Zotter. Director ;serving 'nds for Olive Lane and North State Street to homes and businesses capital improvements needed by the City and rates, legal services, laboratory services, and the cost of · Equipmen' Treatment P · Improvement ~ds and estimated cost for construction of the Wastewater Mayor Ashiku discussed working on a subcommittee with Councilmember Crane, City Manager Horsley, City Attorney Rapport, and Staff to review the bids received. He requested that Director Ziemianek report to the Council and District with regard to specific bid amounts. The subcommittee will return to the City Council and UVSD with further information. Joint Meeting of the City Council and the Ukiah Valley Sanitation District June 27, 2005 Page 1 of 2 C. Adoption of Ukiah Valley Sanitation District 2005-2006 Bud.qet by District Board M/S Crane/Wattenburger adopting City of Ukiah's Ukiah Valley Sanitation District 2005- 2006 Budget, carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Board member Crane and Acting Chairman Wattenburger, NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Chairman Delbar ..... ~, There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at ~.m. Marie Ulvila, City Clerk Joint Meeting of the City Council and the Ukiah Valley Sanitation District June 27, 2005 Page 2 of 2 MEMO Agenda Item: 4e TO: FROM: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers City Clerk Marie Ulvila ~ SUBJECT: City Council Minutes of June 27-28, 2005 DATE: September 2, 2005 Every effort will be made to provide Council with a copy of the Draft minutes for the June 27-28, 2005 no later than Tuesday, September 6, 2005 (Monday, Sept. 5th is a holiday and City Hall will be closed) Memos: CC Late Minutes CITY OF UKIAH CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Regular Adjourned Meeting CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 June 27, 2005 (may continue to June 28th and June 29th) 8:00 a.m. DRAFT The Ukiah City Council met on Tuesday, June 27, 2005 and Wednesday, June 28, 2005, the notice for which had been legally noticed and posted at 9:00 AM, June 22, 2005 at 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, California. lm 1 m = ROLL CALL The meeting began at 8:00 AM Councilmembers Present: Crane, McCowen, Rodin and Mayor Ashiku Councilmembers Absent: Vice-Mayor Baldwin AUDIENCE COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS Mayor Ashiku read the statement regarding audience comments on non-agenda items. No comments received. TIMED ITEM - SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE UKIAH CITY COUNCIL AND UKIAH VALLEY SANITATION DISTRICT- 2 p.m.* or as soon as the meeting may be held in conjunction with the City Council meeting. PUBLIC HEARING - CONSIDERATION AND ADOPTION OF FISCAL YEAR 2005-2006 BUDGET A. Overview of Proposed Budget by City Manager An overview of the proposed Budget was presented by the City Manager. aw Review of General Budget Figures The Finance Director, Mike McCann, reviewed the General Budget Figures, as set forth in the Agenda. C. Review of General Fund/Enterprise Fund Accounts- Directors reviewed their respective General Fund / Enterprise Fund Accounts, as set forth in the Agenda. PUBLIC WORKS - Director Diana Steele PLANNING - Director Charley Stump Recessed at 10:34 a.m. Reconvened at 10:44 a.m. o., III. iv. V. MUNICIPAL AIRPORT & SPECIAL AVIATION - Director Paul Richey POLICE - Chief John Williams FINANCE - Director Mike McCann 5. AD3OURNMENT at 11:00 a.m. TO MEET AS THE UKTAH REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY City Council Budget Hearings - June 27th -- 28th, 2005 Page I of 4 UKI~AH REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEE'T~N~ ROLL CALL Councilmembers Present: Councilmembers Absent: Crane, McCowen, Rodin and Mayor Ashiku Vice-Mayor Baldwin 1 AUDZENCE COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA TrEM; Chairman Ashiku read the statement concerning audience comments on non-agenda items. No public comments received. m PUBLIC HEARI~NG_ - CONSIDERATION AND ADOPTION OF I~SCAL YEAR 2005-2006 BUDGET A. Overview of Proposed Budget by Executive Director- Executive Director Candace Horsley, provided an overview of the Proposed Budget, as set forth in the Agenda B. Review of Redevelopment Fund Accounts - Executive Director Candace Horsley, provided a review of the Redevelopment Fund Accounts, as set forth on the Agenda. C. Adoption of Resolution Approving Ukiah Redevelopment Agency Fiscal Year 2005-2006 M/S by Rodin/Crane adopting Resolution 2005-05 approving the City of Ukiah Redevelopment Agency FY 2005-2006 Budget, with revisions as discussed. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: Commissioners Crane, McCowen, Rodin and Mayor Ashiku NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Baldwin ABSTAIN: None RECONVENE AT 12:00 P.M. AS THE C_TTY COUNC]~I Recessed for lunch at 12:05 p.m.; Reconvened at 1:10 p.m. vi. MUNICIPAL AIRPORT & SPECIAL AVIATION - Director Paul Richy vii. FIRE - Chief Kurt Latipow ADJOURNMENT TO JOTNT MEETING OF THE UK[AH cTrY COUNCTL AND I,IK!AH VA! LEY SANITATION DISTI~TCT at 2:05 I~.m. Refer to Minutes of the "Special joint Meeting of the Ukiah City Council And Ukiah Valley Sanitation District". RECONVENE at 2:45 p.m. as the City Coum;il Recessed at 3:12 p.m.; Reconvened at 3:35 p.m. vii. COMMUNITY SERVICES - Director Sage Sangiacomo City Council Budget Hearings - June 27th -- 28th, 2005 Page 2 of 4 viii. PUBLIC UT[I.TI~ES - Director Bernie Ziemianek ADJOURNMENT AT 5:15 a.m. TO 3UNE 28. 2005 ~t 8:00 a,m. RECONVENE AT 8:18 a.m., Wednesday, 3un,28, 2005 ROLL CALL: Councilmembers Present: Crane, McCowen, Rodin and Mayor Ashiku Councilmembers Absent: Vice-Mayor Baldwin City Manager Horsley reviewed the following items, as set forth in the Agenda. ix. ELECTED AND APPOINTED OFFICIALS x. CITY MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION xi. OTHER FUNDS Recess for lunch at 12:05 p.m.; Reconvene at 1:10 p.m. D. Adoption of Resolution Approving City of Ukiah FY 2005-2006 Budget The Council made the following changes and decisions during the Budget Session: 1. Send a letter to the County regarding whether changing the Library landscaping duties to the County from the City Departments, acceptable. is . Approved a six (6) percent franchise fee to the General Fund from the Electric Revenue versus a fiat fee. . m . Reduce the Purchasing Department Reserve. Approved funding for the Economic Coordinator position from the Redev- elopement Agency and Grant Funding. Approved an increase from $2,000 to $7,500. for Youth Scholarships in the Community Outreach Public Information Fund. . . Staff to bring back Capital Improvement Project and Equipment list for Council review. A percentage of the City Manager's time in redevelopment was changed from .6 to .5 and the difference added to the General Fund. . The City Clerk's Conference and Training Budget was increased by $1,300. and approved additional funds for the City Clerk to purchase new software at $8,517. ge The internal loan program for purchase of fire equipment was approved. It was requested that review of the fire equipment purchases be brought Back to the Council for approval, before issuing purchase orders. City Council Budget Hearings - June 27th - 28th, 2005 Page 3 of 4 . 10. Community Services Department was requested to investigate rehabilitation of portions of the Plaza landscaping due to the fact that they have been vandalized and are in disrepair. Tt was suggested that a community group could volunteer and assist with the funding of the project. 11. The Council discussed a variety of other issues including some mis- matched numbers within the document, the CNG temporary and permanent stations, the history of the account funds, the Sanitation District's history of funds, the project Fund 699 - eliminating funds that were no longer in use and use of the Observatory house. 12. Approved change in Code Enforcement position from part time to full time. 13. Unfroze the Park Leadworker position 14. Unfroze the Public Works Maintenance ! position M/S McCowen/Redin adopting Resolution 200549, approving the City of Ukiah's Fiscal year 2005-2006 Budget with the changes as discussed and agreed upon and further items to be reviewed by staff for our consideration. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: Commissioners Crane, McCowen, Rodin and Mayor Ashiku NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Baldwin ABSTATN: None AD3OURNMENT OF MEET/NG Meeting Adjourned at :L:50 p.m. Marie Ulvila, City Clerk Transcribed by: Gail Petersen, Deputy City Clerk City Council Budget Hearings - June 27th -- 28th, 2005 Page 4 of 4 CITY OF UKIAH CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Regular Meeting CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 Jul}, 6, 2005 The Ukiah City Council met at a Regular Meeting on July 6, 2005, the notice for which had been legally noticed, at 6:35 p.m. in the Civic Center Council mbers, 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, California. 1. ROLL CALL: Present: Councilmembers Crane, Mayor Ashiku , Rodin, Baldwin, and 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The the ,llegiance. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 3a. Special Minutes of Discussion of Proposed Ballot Measure ~ M/S McCowen/Baldwin approving t~al Meeting Workshop and Discussion of Pr~[[~t Ueasu Budget following roll call vote: AY ES:Councilm~/~,~~ Mayor Ashiku. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: ~ 3. 3b. Joint M/S Crane/Rodin ap ecial Join' Ukiah by a unar Bud et p and of February 28, 2005- , carried by the , Rodin, Baldwin, and None. les of May 18, 2005 g Minutes of the City Council and of May 18, 2005 as presented, and carried m M/S McC~ the Ukiah carried by a unl Coun¢ 'Rodin a ~anitatio~ Minutes of June 1 2005- astewater the Special Joint Meeting Minutes of the City Council and (UVSD) meeting of June 1,2005 - Wastewater, and e vote of the Council. 3. APPROVAL MINUTES 3d. Regular ing Minutes of April 20~ 2005 Councilmember McCowen noted a correction to the spelling of paragraph three on page 7 to "David Beebo". "David Brebe" in M/S Rodin/McCowen approving the Regular Meeting Minutes of April 20, 2005 as corrected, and carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Crane, McCowen, Rodin, Baldwin, and Mayor Ashiku. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. Regular City Council Meeting July 6, 2005 Page ] of 6 4. RIGHT TO APPEAL DECISION: Mayor Ashiku read the appeal process. 5. CONSENT CALENDAR: Mayor Read M/S Baldwin/Rodin Approving Consent Calendar Items "a" Throu_clh "e" As Follows: a. Received Report Regarding Grace Hudson Museum Securing the Services of David Smith as Computer Services Specialist for the Upcoming Fiscal Year; b. Adopted Resolution 2006-01 Declaring Results Special Municipal Election of June C. d. e. 7, 2005; Approved Publishing Services by Ukiah Daily Journal for The Amount of $5.42 Per Column Inch for the First For Additional Days; Received Report of Acquisition of Professional Environmental Services at the Corporation Approve Budget Amendment In The Amour Received Report Regarding Grace White Wolf James as Native America~ ~cator Year 2005/2006, In Per Column Inch EBA Engineering For of $8,980.20 and ; Securing rvices of Keith the Year. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYE: Rodin, Baldwin, and Mayor Ashiku. : None. McCowen, None. ABSENT: None. 6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS ON Dotty Coplen recommended the City I: site. [NDA agenda on its Web Pat Sanborn, Gang :ommittee attend a presentat Fath Bc School. ied the Council and community to on July 26th and July 27th at Ukiah High 7. PUBI 7a. the Ukia[ Plannin Planning ,ission Draft Ordinar Commission co~ shape of their p~ neighborhood, limit~ ,eclarat and Introduction of Ordinance na Cultivation" To Division 9. Article :1 his Staff Report with Council and reported that the three public hearings/workshops to consider the forum for public discussion. He explained that the Planning if a patient could demonstrate that because of size and/or well as the physical characteristics of the surrounding growing could be accomplished in an inconspicuous and safe way, the decision-makers could permit a maximum of two to four plants to be cultivated outdoors. The Planning Commission believes that it's recommended Ordinance achieves the needed balance between the needs of true medical marijuana patients and the safety concerns and issues raised by residents. Discussion followed between Council and Staff with regard to the Planning Commission's recommended modifications to the Draft Ordinance. Staff reported preparing an Initial Environmental Study to analyze the potential impacts and concluded that the proposed regulations would not have a significant adverse impact on the environment. No impacts Regular City Council Meeting July 6, 2005 Page 2 of 6 were identified, and a Negative Declaration was prepared and made available for public review and comment. City Attorney Rapport discussed legal issues associated with the Ordinance and the possibility of providing a definition for "mature" and "immature" plants in the Ordinance. Public Hearing Opened: 7:00 p.m. Members of the audience speaking in support of the proposed Coleman, Tina Gordon, Ragene Brown, Judy Pruden, and were: Peter In. Members of the audience that voiced their opposition to Dane Wilkins, Executive Director of Northern Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), John Wise, Trippet (Medical Marijuana Patients Union), Carol Marty Mine, and Laticia (no last name given) ~hmir Ordinance were: Organization for the Crane, Pebbles Nina Matysiak, Public Hearing Closed: 8:01 p.m. Discussion followed with regard to General's office regarding marijuana opinion the California State Attorney and dis[: It was the decision of Council, with th~ the City Attorney to review the California analysis for the City and Baldwin, directing ral's opinion and provide an to the July 20~h meeting. 8. UNFINISHI 8a. Discussion For Proclamatic Council the gen~ an start. iscussion itE ;, he su An Alternate Date or Time - Councilmember McCowen uncil consider the possibility of utilizing either to discuss proclamations, informational items and ing them on the regular Council agendas. As g meetings at 6:00 p.m. in order to provide an earlier The Council will prepare an beginning the Council meetings earlier. The City Manager to the City Council meeting policy for Council's consideration. 9. NEW BU~ 9a. Discussion Regarding Fence at Gibson Creek Councilmember Baldwin discussed the wrought iron fence spanning Gibson Creek off of Standley Street stating it was his opinion that it poses a number of problems including flooding, and creates a barrier to wildlife migration. He requested the Council consider directing the property owner to remove the fence and consider conducting an appraisal of the property for possible City acquisition in order to bring the property back to its original state. He stated the City could act in a stewardship capacity for the property. Public comment opened: 8:21 p.m. Regular City Council Meeting July 6, 2005 Page 3 of 6 Members of the public that spoke to the issue were: Linda Sanders, Pinky Kushner, Jan Moore, Greg Foss, Mary Anne Miller, Rick Piffero (who offered to speak to Mr. Nix concerning the matter), Kevin McNally, and Becky Thune. Public Comment Closed: 8:40 p.m. Considerable discussion followed between Council and City Staff regarding the matter. Issues/concerns discussed included: · City Attorney Rapport providing legal advise to Council engineer's certification and if the fence is not removed send a letter to the property owner notifying the regarding this stipulation or the City Attorney will City of Ukiah · The height of the fence was within the · The City Attorney noted that he did not navigable stream · City Staff noted that when the City was Staff contacted the Department of Fish and Management Authority and wa~ · The Department of Fish and G fish passage · The property owner's concern fence was constructed not feel the gard to obtaining an the City could to comply within 10 on behalf of the ~n Creek coul the stream, reviewed Federal Emergency to the initial call for wildlife and :e is one reason why the It was the consens place for recommended that consider with th, Council FEMA vi~ own6 ,r the City to follow the process already in on the subject property. It was also ~mprove the aesthetics of the fence and Jnty Land Trust. Reces 9:20 p Rec 9:28 p. 1 9b. Disc~ Councilmeml: matter before the recommended the downtown core of NE ISINESS Formula Business Ordinances - Phil Baldwin that the Walgreens project encouraged him to bring this for consideration. He discussed the New Rules Project and ;nact an Ordinance limiting or banning formula businesses from the City. Public comment opened: 9:30 p.m. Members of the audience that spoke to the issue included: Jann Moore, Ruth Sander, Linda Helland, Alea Waters, Joy Beeler (representing the Ukiah Main Street Program), Laticia (no last name given), Pinky Kushner, Mary Anne Miller, Steve Scalmanini, and Lang Russell. Regular City Council Meeting July 6, 2005 Page 4 of 6 Public Comment Closed: 10:00 p.m. City Attorney Rapport provided legal advice to Council with regard to court decisions and the legal rights of property owners. He went on to discuss the issue of defining what is considered a formula business. Some cities require a special use permit and require specific findings before a use permit could be issued. Planning Director Stump explained that at the Council's July 20th meeting, he will provide information to Council with regard to form based zoning in the do~ area. After discussing the matter, it was the consensus of Attorney and Planning Director to research the matter an, opinions and options available at the July 20th meeting to direct the City le the Council with their 9. NEW BUSINESS 9c. Appointment of City Council Re Mayor Ashiku recommended Councilmemb representative to the Mendocino Transit Authori Iive to Mendocino as ti It was the consensus of the City representative to the Mendocino Tra to reappoin for Rodin as the City's ional two-year term. 9. NEW BUSINESS 9d. Discussion of City Council Re City Manager receiving Board of Mendocino the Due to schedul three meetings. ibrary Advisory Board ;r from tiresident of the Library Advisory of ~uncil appointment to its Board. ~tative has been unable to attend the last Discussio Counc Cour Bald, and it was the consensus of the City ite a letter to the Library Board informing them that meetings for the summer. 1 Councilmember making a decision. of Resolution ' Memorandum of Bar, ' ' Unit- Mana ement requested the matter be discussed in Closed Session prior to 10. COUNCIL REPORTS Mayor Ashiku reported that he and Councilmember Crane, and City staff will be meeting with Brown and Caldwell regarding the Wastewater Treatment Plant this Friday, July 8t~. He will provide a report to Council at its next meeting. Councilmember Rodin reported attending a conference in Sacramento in which she learned about form based zoning and local government commissions. They will be posting their Power Point presentation on the internet soon and she thought it would be useful to the July 20th Council discussions on the matter. Regular City Council Meeting July 6, 2005 Page 5 of 6 11. CITY MANAGER/CITY CLERK REPORTS City Clerk Ulvila advised that she will be on vacation during the week of July 18t' and Executive Assistant Petersen will record the July 20t' meeting. The extended deadline for City Commissions applications closes July 12t'. 12. CLOSED SESSION - Adjourned at: 10:50 p.m. 12a. Conference with Labor Negotiator G.C. §54957.6 City Designated Representative: Candace Horsley, City Employee Organization: Management Unit Reconvened at: 11:30 p.m. No action taken. 13. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further busine,, at 11:30 p.m. adjourned Marie Ulvila, City Clerk Regular City Council Meeting July 6, 2005 Page 6 of 6 CITY OF UKIAH CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Regular Meeting CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 August 3, 2005 Commission Applicant Interviews: Airport Commission and Creeks Commission. The Ukiah City Council met at a Regular Meeting on August 3, legally noticed, at 5:22 p.m. in the Civic Center Council California. Open Space and notice for which had been eminary Avenue, Ukiah, 1. ROLL CALL- Present: Councilmembers Crar p.m.) and Mayor Ashiku. Staff present: City Attorney Rapport, Airport Clerk Ulvila. r Richey, Rodin, B (arrived at 5:30 !ning and City Council interviewed applicants Bill Lindsay Leland and James Connerton It was noted that Dan Holbrook submitt~ was unable to attend the interview sessi~ Benjamin s, Open for r for the Airport Commission; and Ms. and Creeks Commission (POSC). intment to the POSC, however, Recessed: 5:46 p.m. Reconvened: 6:06 p. 1. ROLLCALL- Staff present: Fire C Rapport, Clerk nt: Coun~ mbers McCowen, Rodin, Baldwin and Mayor Ashiku. Finance Director McCann, City Attorney 1 Ashiku led the Pledge of Allegiance. URGENCY ITEM: City ~r Horsley an~ the need Iion came to Urgency California Stat~ Apartments unde is a need to take immediate action on a matter and attention of the City subsequent to the agenda being posted. The of Resolution approving the submittal of an application to the g and Community Development for funding the Clara Court Investment Partnerships Program. M/S McCowen/Crane place Urgency Item on the Agenda as item "10d", carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Crane, McCowen, Rodin, Baldwin, and Mayor Ashiku. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. Mayor Ashiku announced that a special presentation to the Council is requested. Jamie Connerton, member of the Paths, Open Space, and Creeks Commission (POSC), advised that former POSC chairman Bill Randolph passed away on Monday. He discussed Mr. Randolph's Regular City Council Meeting August 3, 2005 Page ] of 8 contributions to the City as a former Planning Commission erand current member of the POSC. An informal memorial is scheduled on August ~h at Todd Grove Park. Members of the City Council expressed their condolences to Mr. Randolph's family and commended his involvement in community projects. 3. PRESENTATION 3a. Presentation Lorraine Duverm Corporation Expansion Into Mendocino County City Manager Horsley introduced Lorraine Duvernay; Development Corporation (SBDC) and noted SBDC is Mendocino County. the Develo of Small Business g a field office in Lorraine Duvernay explained that currently SBDC i., to expand its role in Mendocino County. She outlined how SBDC can assist small Corporation (EDFC) has offered an office to finalizing plans to come to Ukiah in the very near expertise that SBDC can provide to Ioc~ ' counseling and training. an :ing out of and is looking ,round on its small center and The E~ Develo Financing and they working on ~lained the need for the business .ups including professional business 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 4a. Joint Meetin of the Council Minutes of the July 14, contir District - Jul~ 2005 meeting. 4. APPROVAL lUTES 4b. ular Minutes Minutes of the July ~ued t( August 17, 2005 meeting. Sm ;ION: read. 6. C Co~ Rodi remo~ the Conser~ Ashiku read. "6g", concerning the Adelphia franchise agreement, be discussion. After a by C( , it was the consensus to briefly discuss the matter at this time. City Manager meeting. that item "6d" be pulled from the agenda and continued to the next Councilmember McCowen submitted recommended language changes to item 6g. Steve Scalmanini explained that his issue with item "6g" concerns the rebroadcasting of City Council meetings by the Mendocino Environmental Center. He was informed by the City Manager that Adelphia has consented to allowing the Environmental Center's radio station to rebroadcast the signal for City Council meetings which would be obtained from Adelphia's public channel station. It is the intention of the Environmental Center to begin rebroadcasting the City Council meetings soon. Regular City Council Meeting August 3, 2005 Page 2 of 8 Councilmember McCowen explained that when Council discussed this matter previously, he raised the point of adding language that would ensure that similar facilities to those listed in "Exhibit D" would be able to hook up in the future with a cap to the cost to Adelphia of no more than $2,500. Additionally, in "Exhibit E", paragraph two of page 5, there was language that would cap those future locations at five. Given that this is a 15-year contract and the City doesn't know what new schools or public facilities might open during that time, he proposed and submitted language that he felt would be more consistent with the City's original direction. The City Manage~ as checked with Adelphia and it is acceptable to them. That being the case, he recomm{ Council incorporate paragraph two into the agreement of "Exhibit E", as submitted int~ It was the consensus of Council to include Councilmembe changes to the Adelphia agreement. recommended language M/RC Baldwin/McCowen ' Consent Cale~ "h" As Follows: a. Authorized the City Manager to Award The Wastewater Treatment Plant Out-fall California for A Total Lump Sum Amount Of b. C, "a" Thr~ "e" Throl h Authorized The City Manager T, Expansion Project with W estE Accepted Federal Aviation Admi rgency Cont~ Repair Of ction, In~ f Petaluma, Chan No. 4 to the Water Storage cto · Lnt in th~ unt of $114,285.00; e. Adopted Ordinanc Division 9, Cha f. Received Re Painting, Swimming g. Approved Adell: h. Rt COL ~=move the 1 Addin of the Regard Paint on Regardi ed to next meeting) ~d "Marijuana Cultivation" to :ity Code, Purchase of Emergency Services From NCD Interior of the Lap Pool at the Ukiah Municipal of Recording System. Moti~ ried by ti B~ and Mayor call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Crane, McCowen, Rodin, ~ne. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. m Jan McG¢ pplauded Council ortion ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS: M Read iCity Council for approving the Adelphia contract and requested franchise fees towards their operating budget. 9. UNFINISHED 9a. Interim ,rdinance Imposing a Moratorium on Formula Businesses within the Downtown Business District and on Perkins and Gobbi Streets (Continued from July 20~ 2005) It was the consensus of the Council to continue the matter to the September 7, 2005 meeting. 10d. Adoption of Resolution Approving the Submittal of an Application to the Californi~ State Department of Housing and Community Development for Funding the Clara Court Apartments Under the HOME Investment Partnerships Program City Manager Horsley explained that the agenda was prepared before this item came forward and Regular City Council Meeting August 3, 2005 Page 3 of $ the item needs to be approved by August 15, 2005, before the next scheduled Council meeting. The Rural Communities Housing Development Corporation (RCHDC) is requesting that the City apply for a HOME loan on behalf of RCHDC to complete the Clara Court Apartments, a 32-unit affordable housing development for lower income households, at the intersection of Clara and Orchard Streets. This loan is essential to successfully complete this project. RCHDC will be responsible for all reporting requirements, even after the loan period. M/S Rodin/McCowen adopting Resolution 2006-06, authorizing California State Department of Housing and Community Developr Investment Partnerships Program; and if selected, the execu amendments thereto, and of any related documents ne, Investment Partnerships Program; carried by the Crane, McCowen, Rodin, Baldwin, and Mayor Ashiku. : None. None. of an application to the r funding under the HOME standard agreement, any in the HOME : Councilmembers None. ABSENT: 10. NEW BUSINESS 10a. Ado of Resolution M; Open Space~ and Creeks Commission Councilmember Baldwin inquired if Ashiku applicants is an employee of his. Commission the Paths, ict of interest since one of the Mayor Ashiku did not think he has a c~ Councilmember Baldwin passed on the the first nomination. M/S Rodin/Crane 2008, carried by th, Baldwin, and iku. roll Lrd to vote: )ne. AB~ rt Commi on to a term expiring on June 30, Councilmembers Crane, McCowen, Rodin, N: None. ABSENT: None. M/S McCowen/Crane June 30, Rodin, Airport Commission to a term expiring on roi AYES: Councilmembers Crane, McCowen, NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. Crane nomination. M/S Asl laldwin nom Commissio~ term expir Councilmemb~ None. ABSENT ng James Connerton to the Paths, Open Space, and Creeks on June 30, 2008, carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Rodin, Baldwin, and Mayor Ashiku. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: M/S Baldwin nominating Lindsay Leland to the Paths, Open Space, and Creeks Commission to a term expiring on June 30, 2008, carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Crane, McCowen, Rodin, Baldwin, and Mayor Ashiku. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. M/S Rodin/Baldwin nominating Dan Holbrook to the Paths, Open Space, and Creeks Commission to the unexpired term of Bill Randolph expiring on June 30, 2006, carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Crane, McCowen, Rodin, Baldwin, and Mayor Ashiku. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. Regular City Council Meeting August 3, 2005 Page 4 of 8 M/S Rodin/McCowen adopting Resolution 2006-07 making appointments of Bill Beard and Benjamin Winter to the Airport Commission and James Connerton, Lindsay Leland and Dan Holbrook to the Paths, Open Space, and Creeks Commission, carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Crane, McCowen, Rodin, Baldwin, and Mayor Ashiku. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 8. PUBLIC HEARING (6:45 P.M.) 8a. Adoption of Resolution Amending the General Plan Introduction of an Ordinance to the Zonin¢ Assessor Parcel No. 001-430-35 Associate Planner Lohse reviewed his Staff Report to a General Plan Amendment/Zone Change by Shimizu- Plan land use designation for the 1.04-acre subject Residential) to R-1 PD (Low Density Residential-I approval of the PD designation would permit th, for the 12-lot subdivision proposed in this a shaped lot located near the corner of Low Gap Use Classification an,~ .r the Lends De., 'nated as that the application for d allow the General to be changed f Development Com ,mentation ~n~que is pro treet. R (High Density District). The .t standards an irregular Discussion ensued between Council walkways :h regard ~us aspects of the project, including Bruce Shimizu, applicant, provided a pre,, John Martin, contractor f responded to questiom Osmund discussed ~cepts the materials that used in th~ for photovoltaic s' 'ect, an wi' tart lstructior e project. He introduced itect for the project, and they to the I: housing development. Ms. "green building", and demonstrated some of units. She noted that the units will be wired Items con~ · :ost of the Ibacks · · La · On-s1 · En( · It was note property nd on-site di,, and zoning perty owner and responsibilities of ownership to accommodate owners and visitors g in the neighborhood would be located on a private street, to be maintained by the Public Hearing Opened: 7:27 pm No comments received. Public Hearing Closed: 7:27 pm M/S Rodin/McCowen approving the Negative Declaration prepared for the project, carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Crane, McCowen, Rodin, Baldwin, and Mayor Ashiku. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. Regular City Council Meeting August 3, 2005 Page 5 of 8 M/S Rodin/Crane to adopt Resolution 2006-08 approving the amendment of the General Plan Land Use Map from HDR land use designation to the LDR land use designation. Councilmember Baldwin expressed his concern with "down zoning" land and encouraged that it be consistent with other high density areas of the City. Councilmember Rodin discussed the location of the infill parcel an( would not encourage down zonings, however, in this instance its that, in general she Councilmember McCowen voiced his support for the Planning Commission's review, and since there were no Although he opposes the concept of down zoning, he of :ause it went through the from neighbors. ect. Mayor Ashiku was encouraged by this project be, provides more housing in the City. provides a sense of and Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYE~ Baldwin, and Mayor Ashiku. NOES: N~ ABSTAIN: ~bers Crane, McCowen, Rodin, ABSENT: None. M/S McCowen/Rodin introducing Ordi AYES: Councilmembers Crane, ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. Only, :1 by the following roll call vote: Ashiku. NOES: None. City Clerk Ulvila read Amending the Offici~ Map lance, City inance of 9 City Council of the City of Ukiah California". M/S Rodin District to the R-1 PD Z~ Crane, None. and r~ing the affected lands from the R-3 Zoning g roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: er Horsley devel~ ~t that will be Io at a Se r meeting. that she, invited a developer of the Hop Kiln housing Masonite site, to speak to Council about the project 10. NEW 10b. Review Mayor Ashiku rec~ the matter with the Ci' s Ca ' Re Needs ;d continuing this matter to allow Council the opportunity of discussing .ger in Closed Session. It was the consensus of the City Council to hear from Chief Latipow concerning this matter and then continue the matter to the next meeting. Fire Chief Latipow reviewed his Staff Report to Council which listed items scheduled for replacement and noted that the Department is remaining consistent with the projected life span of the equipment. He requested Council's authorization for staff to proceed with the bid process for the items listed in the Staff Report. He briefly discussed the recent ballot measure that was passed that Regular City Council Meeting August 3, 2005 Page 6 of 8 increased the sales tax revenue to the City for the purpose of, in part, providing the necessary replacement of vehicles and equipment for the City's Fire Department. Discussion followed with regard to the status of the equipment listed in the Staff Report. Chief Latipow listed the Department's priorities for replacement of vehicles and equipment. Other topics of discussion included storage of equipment and it was noted by Chief Latipow that staff would make sure that equipment purchased would fit the confines of the Fir~ .epartment. Mayor Ashiku explained that he would like to have more other City Departments with regard to their equipment needs develop a mechanism to evaluate those needs for all City de be discussed further during the Closed Session item sch the Fire Department and rk with the City Manager to preferred that the matter ,nda. Fire Chief Latipow requested permission to go out included in this year's budget. pickup was a line item M/S Baldwin/Crane to allow the Fire Department t< a pick up truck; carried by the following roll call Rodin, Baldwin, and Mayor Ashiku. N( None. process for' rchase of ~ncilmembers Crane, McCowen, None. ABSENT: None. It was the consensus of Council to co the August 17th meeting. of e; equipment needs to 10. NEW BUSINESS 10c. nation Conference City Manager 6 through October 8 representative and altE ate League' ~o this Lea ue of California Cities )5 Annual Conference is scheduled for October r. Each city is asked to designate a voting at the conference. MIS M Cou~ Bald~ ~; carrit Councilmember Rodin as the City's voting delegate and ~ate voting delegate for the 2005 Annual League of California s consent of the Council. 11. C, Councilme meeting. :IL REPORT~ McCow~ attending a Mendocino Council of Governments (MCOG) Councilmember R that today she attended an Economic Development and Financing Corporation (EDFC) rd meeting. She attended a meeting of the Russian River Watershed Council and reported on a presentation concerning mercury pollution and ways in which cities can address the problem. She attended a Public Health Advisory Board meeting and they listened to a presentation by Rick Ryder Homes and they were left with ideas as to how the project could be improved. She inquired if City Manager Horsley could write a letter on behalf of the City Council and provide a message to the developer as to the City's view on the project and what it would like to see. Councilmember Baldwin requested a copy of the Ukiah Valley Area Plan and EIR so that Council would have an opportunity to review the plan and comment if necessary. He thought it very relevant Regular City Council Meeting August 3, 2005 Page 7 of 8 to the Hop Kiln housing project. 12. CITY MANAGER/CITY CLERK REPORTS City Manager Horsley reported that LAFCO's Executive Director is requesting the City's response to a LAFCO policy regarding annexation. City Staff has not had an opportunity to review this document and would need to bring it before the City Council for a policy statement. City Clerk Ulvila advised that the deadline for submitting application~ Review Board and to the Parks, Recreation, and Golf Commiss~( to the Design 9th at noon. 11. 13. 13a. CLOSED SESSION - Adjourned at 8:12 p.m. CLOSED SESSION Conference with Labor otiator G.C. Public Employee Performance Evaluation: Ci er Reconvened at: 10:47 p.m. 14. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the g was adjol 10:47 p.m. Marie Ulvila, City Clerk Regular City Council Meeting August 3, 2005 Page 8 of 8 MEMO Agenda Item: 4g TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers FROM: City Clerk Marie Ulvila ~ SUBJECT: City Council Minutes of August 3, 2005 DATE: September 2, 2005 Every effort will be made to provide Council with a copy of the Draft minutes for the August 3, 2005 no later than Tuesday, September 6, 2005 (Monday, Sept. 5th is a holiday and City Hall will be closed) Memos: CC Late Minutes ITEM 'NO. 6a DATE: September 7, 2005 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: NOTIFICATION TO COUNCIL REGARDING THE AWARD OF BID FOR TWO ELECTRIAL VAULT COLLARS AND LIDS IN THE AMOUNT Of $7,700.55 In compliance with Section 1522 of the City of Ukiah Municipal Code, this report is being submitted to the City Council for the purpose of reporting the acquisition of material costing more than $5,000 but less than $10,000. Two electrical vault collars and lids were purchased from Utility Vault Company, the manufacturer of two vaults in the City that are in need of repair. Sufficient funds are available in the 2005/2006 Fiscal Year in Account Number 800.3646.690.000. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive and file report regarding the award of bid to Utility Vault Company in the amount of $7,700.55 ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: N/A Citizen Advised:N/A Requested by: Stan Bartolomei, Electrical Supervisor Prepared by: Judy Jenney, Purchasing & Warehouse Assistant Coordinated with: Candace Horsley, City Manager Candace Horsley, City.l~lanager ITEM NO. 6t, DATE: September 7, 2005 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: NOTIFICATION TO COUNCIL REGARDING THE AWARD OF BID FOR 4,500 FT. OF #2 AWG ALUMINUM, 15KV, EPR INSULATED SINGLE CONDUCTOR, JACKETED CONCENTRIC NEUTRAL, UNDERGROUND CABLE TO THE OKONITE COMPANY IN THE AMOUNT Of $5,970.61 In compliance with Section 1522 of the City of Ukiah Municipal Code, this report is being submitted to the City Council for the purpose of reporting the acquisition of material costing more than $5,000 but less than $10,000. A Request for Quotation (R.F.Q.) through the informal bid process was sent to six suppliers. Four bids were received by the Electric Department on August 8, at 1:00 p.m. Staff evaluated the bids; The Okonite Company was the lowest bidder. A purchase order was issued in the amount of $5,970.61 including tax and freight. This cable will be placed in warehouse stock for planned future projects and has been budgeted in the 2005/2006 Fiscal Year in Account Number 800.3646.690.000. Sufficient funds are available. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive and file report regarding the award of bid to The Okonite Company in the amount of $5,970.61 ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: N/A Citizen Advised: N/A Requested by: Stan Bartolomei, Electrical Supervisor Prepared by: Judy Jenney, Purchasing & Warehouse Assistant Coordinated with: Candace Horsley, City Manager Attachment: 1. Bid results Candace Horsley, Cit~nager Attachment 1 BID RESULTS #2 AWG ALUMINUM, 15 KV, EPR INSULATED SINGLE CONDUCTOR, JACKETTED CONCENTRIC NEUTRAL UNDERGROUND CABLE The Okonite Company Champion Wire & Cable JCH Wire & Cable American Wire Group $5,970.61 $7,722.00 $8,687.25 $9,459.45 ITEM NO. 6c MEETING DATE: September 7, 2005 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: REJECTION OF CLAIM FOR DAMAGES RECEIVED FROM ELLIS AND REFERRAL TO JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY, EMPIRE MUNICIPAL INSURANCE FUND KATHLEEN REDWOOD A claim from Kathleen Ellis was received by the City of Ukiah on August 10, 2005 and alleges damages to the windshield of her vehicle on August 4, 2005. She reports that a rock from a City of Ukiah dump truck hit and cracked her windshield while she was driving on Perkins St. Pursuant to City policy, it is recommended the City Council reject the claim as stated and refer it to the Redwood Empire Municipal Insurance Fund (REMIF). RECOMMENDED ACTION: Reject Claim For Damages Received From Kathleen Ellis and Refer Them To The Joint Powers Authority, Redwood Empire Municipal Insurance Fund. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: Alternative action not advised by the City's Risk Manager. Citizen Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: Yes Claimant Patsy Archibald, Risk Manager/Budget Officer Candace Horsley, City Manager 1. Claim of Kathleen Ellis, pages 1-3. Candace Horsley, City Mana~:J~r PA:WPD,ASR Remif Claim Rejections/file name ~ City Clerk's Office City of Ukiah 300 Seminary Ave Ukiah, CA 95482 CLAIM FOR MONEY OR DAMAGES AGAINST THE CITY OF UKIAH ESERVE FOR FILING STAMP 'S nEPAET~fENT A claim must be presented, as prescribed by the Government Code of the State of California, by the claimant or'a person acting on his/her behalf and shall show the following: If additional space is needed to provide your information, please attach sheets, identifying the Paragraph(s) being answered. Name and address of the Claimant: Name of Claimant: Address: Address to which the person presenting the claim desires notices to be sent: The date, place and other circumstances of the occurrence or transaction which gave rise to the claim asserted. Date o Occurrence: ~..~,,f q.. ~,j(,,),~ ' Time of Occurrence: . ~¢/~,..,~5._~..~" Location' " - '" " .... 'J ' '" ' - C rcumstances giving rise to this claim' ~_~' .. _.. ._'5 z_o_ .&P- q . General description of the indebtedness, obligation, injury, damage or loss incurred so far as it may be known at the time (~Jhe presentatiQn of the claim. __ The name or names of the pu'blic employee or employees causing the injury, damage, or loss, if known.' Page 1 of 3 If amount claimed totals less than $10,000: The amount claimed, if it totals less than ten thousand dollars ($10,000) as of the date of presentation of the claim, including the estimated amount of any prospective injury, damage, or loss, insofar as it may be known at the time of the presentation of the claim, together with the basis of computation of the amount claimed. Amount Claimed and basis for computation' ~~,.~ ,, 7' If amount claimed exceeds $10,000: If the amount claimed exceeds ten thousand dollars ($10,000), no.dollar amount shall be included in the claim. However, it shall indicate whether the claim would be a limited civil case. A limited civil case is one where the recovery sought, exclusive of attorney fees, interest and court costs does not exceed $25,000. An unlimited civil case is one in which the recovery sought is more than $25,000. (See CCP § 86.) ~ Limited Civil Case E~ Unlimited Civil Case required to provide the information requested above in order to comply with Government Code ' . Claimant(s) Social Sec~urity Number(s): (optional) Claimant(s) Date(s) of Birth: Name, address and telephone number of any witnesses to the occurrence or transaction which gave rise to the claim asserted: ~ 10. If the claim involves medical treatment for a claimed injury, please provide the name, address and telephone number of any dOctors~s providing treatment': ,, If applicable,-please attach any medical bills ok.rePorts.Or'similar documents.'sUppo/ting yoUr claim. If the claim relates to an automobile a '~ Claimant(s) Auto Ins. Co.: Telephone: Address' Insurance Policy No.: Insurance Broker/Agent: Telephone: Address: Claimant's Veh. Lic. No.: Vehicle ~ake/Year: Claimant's Drivers Lic. No.: Expiration' · If applicable, .please 'attach any repair bills, est/mates or similar documents supporting your claim. Page 2 of 3 READ CAREFULLY For all accident claims, place on.the following diagram the name City of Ukiah vehicle; location of City of Ukiah vehicle at time of of .streets, including North, East, South, and West; indicate place of accident by "X" and by showing house numbers o.r distances to street corners. If City of Ukiah vehicle was involved, designate by letter "A" location of City of Ukiah vehicle when you first saw it, and by "B" location of yourself or your vehicle..when you. first saw accident by "A-I" and location of yourself or your vehicle at the time of the accident by "B-I" and the point of impact by "X." NOTE: If diagrams, below do not fit the situation; attach hereto a proper diagram signed by claimant. CURB ' 'f' SIDEWALK PARKWAY SIDEWALK CURB '"-'4. Warning' Presentation of a false claim is a felony (Penal.Code §72). Pursuant to California Civil Prodecures §1038, the City/Agency may seek to recover all costs of defense in the event an action is filed .which is later determined not to have been brought in good faith and with reasonable cause. ' Sig'nature: ~ ~, Page 3 of 3 AGENDA ITEM NO: 6 d MEETING DATE: September 7, 2005 SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: NOTIFICATION OF BUDGETED PURCHASE AWARD TO GEO. E. HONN CO., INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $6381.38 FOR A VOLTAGE/CURRENT METER-RECORDER WITH POWER AND HARMONICS RECORDING CAPABILITY, AND ONE SET OF 24" FLEX CURRENT TRANSFORMERS Submitted for the City Council's notification is the 2004/05 budgeted purchase award to Geo. E. Honn Co., Inc. in the amount of $6381.38 including freight toward the purchase of a meter/recorder with power and harmonics recording capability and one set of 24" flex current transformers. This equipment will be used to replace existing equipment that can no longer be repaired. The meter/recorder is used to obtain voltage/current/power readings of transformers, secondaries, and services. The information is required to find and diagnose electrical system problems as they occur. This equipment enables the electrical engineering department to acquire the necessary system parameters for analysis and corrective measures. This is a sole source award due to the specifics of the equipment fitting the exact needs of the department. The recorder was budgeted in Account 800.3642.800.000. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive notification of purchase award to Geo. E. Honn Co., Inc. in the amount of $6381.38. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: N/A Citizens Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: N/A Bernie Ziemianek, Public Utilities Director Bernie Ziemianek, Public Utilities Director Candace Horsley, City Manager Approved: Candace Horsley, City Mart~ger AGENDA ITEM NO: 6e MEETING DATE: September 7, 2005 SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: NOTIFICATION OF BUDGETED PURCHASE AWARD TO MARSH- MCBIRNEY CORPORATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $9309.30 FOR TWO FLO-MATE VELOCITY METERS Submitted for the City Council's notification is the budgeted purchase award to Marsh- McBirney Corporation in the amount of $9309.30 including freight for two flow velocity meters. These meters will be used in manholes for flow detection and monitoring during line cleaning, normal maintenance, and I&l program. This will enable maintenance crews to properly monitor and measure wastewater flows and clear water infiltration to develop profiles of infrastructure flows and locations. Only one bid was received with Marsh-McBirney Corporation being the lowest and fitting the exact needs of the department. The meters were budgeted in Account 612.3510.690.000. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive notification of sole source bid award to Marsh- McBirney Corporation in the amount of $9309.30 ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: N/A Citizens Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: N/A Bernie Ziemianek, Public Utilities Director Bernie Ziemianek, Public Utilities Director Candace Horsley, City Manager Approved' ~.Z~,~~~.~ Candace Horsley, City I~nager AGENDA ITEM NO: 6f MEETING DATE: September 7, 2005 SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: NOTIFICATION OF BUDGETED BID AWARD TO CANON USA IN THE AMOUNT OF $8363.49 FOR THE PURCHASE OF NON-VIDEO CAMERA EQUIPMENT WITH PIPE ACCESSORIES Submitted for the City Council's notification is the 2004/05 budgeted bid award to Canon USA in the amount of $8363.49 including freight toward the purchase of an industrial non-video detection camera and associated pipe accessories. This equipment will be used in conjunction with the I&l video truck equipment to access internal piping infrastructure conditions. Bids were received from 4 vendors with Canon USA being the lowest cost provider. The vendor bids were: Canon USA: Tech Depot: Bel Aire Camera: Fire Side Camera: Royal Camera: Total bid of $8363.49 Total bid of $8504.06 Total bid of $8744.09 Total bid of $9296.61 Total bid of $9784.42 This equipment was budgeted in the 2004/05 Account: 800.3650.690.000. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive notification of bid award to Canon USA in the amount of $8363.49 ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: N/A Citizens Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: N/A Bernie Ziemianek, Public Utilities Director Bernie Ziemianek, Public Utilities Director Candace Horsley, City Manager Approved:~~ Candace Horsley, Cit~Manager AGENDA SUMMARY ITEM NO. 6g DATE: Septmber7, 2005 REPORT SUB.1ECT: RE3ECT ALL BIDS FOR FOUR WHEEL DRIVE PICK UP SUMMARY: Recently the Purchasing Department issued a request for bids for one (1) new four wheel drive full size 3/4 ton pick up for the fire department. Four vendors responded with bids that were opened by the City Clerk on August 23, 2005. Staff has determined that none of the vendors responded with bids that met the specifications published. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Reject all bids and re-advertise ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTION: Provide staff with alternative action Citizen Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: N/A N/A Kurt Latipow, Fire Chief Candace Horsley, City Manager None APPROVED: Can~d~e Horsier;, City Manag~ AGENDA ITEM NO: 6h MEETING DATE: September 7, 2005 SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: AUTHORIZATION FOR CITY MANAGER TO SIGN AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN DOCUMENTS In November of 2004, the Ukiah City Council authorized staff to enter into a professional service agreement with Mead & Hunt to update the Airport Layout Plan (ALP) for the Ukiah Regional Airport. This action was required by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to be eligible for grant funding. Mead & Hunt has completed the ALP update and is ready for submittal to the FAA at this time. The FAA has required that the ALP documents be signed by a "City of Ukiah Signatory Authority" (see attached FAA letter) before they will approve the documents. Staff is recommending Council authorize the City Manager to sign and submit the ALP documents for approval, this will complete the update process. RECOMMENDED ACTION: DOCUMENTS AUTHORIZE CITY MANAGER TO SIGN ALP ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: N/A Citizens Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: N/A Paul Richey, Airport Manager Paul Richey, Airport Manager Candace Horsley, City Manager FAA letter Approved!'~'~'~ ~.~ ..... Cand"ac"c~e Horsley' City M~~~,er U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration San Francisco Airports District Office 831 Mitten Road, Room 210 Burlingame, California 94010-1303 06/21/2005 Mrs. Diana Steele City Engineer/Director of Public Works City of Ukiah 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 Dear Mrs. Steele, Subject: Airport Layout Plan (ALP) for the Ukiah Municipal Airport The Airport District Office (ADO) has reviewed the Airport Layout Plan, dated on 04/01/2005. Upon submittal of the Final ALP, the ADO will proceed with the Airspace Study for the subject ALP. The quality of the submitted ALP is very good. Not withstanding, there are a few remaining edits that are still required, and should be reflected on the Final ALP. On the Final ALP, please include the following: Add a taxiway stub to threshold end of Runway 15 to correct aligned (lead-in) taxiway. An aligned taxiway is one whose centerline coincides with a Runway centerline. FAA policy states that aligned taxiways increase the risk of runway incursions and pose operational problems, making them a poor airport design element. When the section of runway is no longer needed for use as nmway, the pavement section should be decommissioned and a new stub taxiway constructed to serve the new runway threshold. Print "No OFZ Object Penetrations." If object penetrations exist, please include a table listing the objects and proposed disposition indicating how they will be removed. Print "No Threshold Siting Surface Object Penetrations." If object penetrations exist, please include a table listing the objects and proposed disposition indicating how they will be removed. Label 'taxiway(s) on ALP configuration drawing. · Depict and label FAA standard taxiway centerline to fixed or moveable object. Accordingly, please submit to the ADO eight (8) copies of the Final ALP drawing set, signed and dated by a City o atory authority. Should you have any questions please contact me at (650) 876-2803, ext 667. Sincerely, Femando Yanez FAA 'Airport Planner AGENDA ITEM NO: 6i MEETING DATE: September 7, 2005 SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: NOTIFICATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL CONCERNING THE EMERGENCY REPLACEMENT OF A HEATING/AIR CONDITIONING UNIT ON THE FLIGHT SERIVCE STATION BUILDING AT THE UKIAH REGIONAL AIRPORT IN THE AMOUNT OF $ 5,820.71. Submitted for the Ukiah City Council's notification is the emergency replacement of a heating/air conditioning unit. In August, 2005, one of the air conditioning units on the Flight Service Station Building (FSS) failed. This unit was over 30 years old. Because this unit provided air conditioning to a portion of the FSS building that Federal Aviation Administration rents from the City of Ukiah, and sensitive electronic equipment is housed in this area, staff elected to replace the unit as soon as possible. The unit was replaced by Ashford Heating & Cooling on August 22, 2005, in the amount of $5,820.71. Staff chose Ashford Heating & Cooling because they replaced an identical unit on the same building 2 years ago, and their availability to replace the unit in a timely manner. This purchase will be funded from the Building & Grounds Maintenance Fund # 600- 5001-305. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive notification concerning the emergency replacement of heating/air conditioning unit to Ashford Heating & Cooling in the amount of $ 5,820.71 ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: N/A Citizens Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: N/A Paul Richey, Airport Manager Paul Richey, Airport Manager Candace Horsley, City Manager None Approved:'"-,~~~~;~. ,~. Candace Horsley, City ~anager AGENDA ITEM NO: 6j MEETING DATE: September 7, 2005 SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF POLICY RESOLUTION AMENDING COUNCIL MEETING PROCEDURES TO CHANGE THE STARTING OF PUBLIC HEARINGS The City Council requested a change for the time Public Hearings are agendized from 6:45 P.M. to 6:15 P. IVl. This was due to the starting time of the Council meetings from 6:30 to 6:00 P.M. The attached Policy Resolution establishes the Public Hearing time to be 6:15 P.M. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Hearing Time for 6:15 P.M. Adoption of Policy Resolution Establishing the Public ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: Citizens Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: City Council Candace Horsley, City Manager Marie Ulvila Attachment #1 - Resolution Approved: ~~'~~.('~. Candace City Horsley, iv~ager Attachment POLICY RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH ESTABLISHING THE AGENDA ORDER FOR COUNCIL MEETINGS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE PROCEDURES OF CONDUCT FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS WHEREAS, The Procedures of Conduct for City Council Meetings requires the Council to adopt a resolution establishing the Order of Its Agenda; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to amend the Order of Agenda. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Ukiah establishes the following Order of Agenda for City Council meetings: · 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. Roll Call Pledge of Allegiance Presentations/Proclamations/Introductions Approval of Minutes Right to Appeal Decision Consent Calendar Audience Comments on Non-Agenda Items Public Hearings- Timed at 6:15 P.M. Unfinished Business New Business Council Reports City Manager/City Clerk/Director Reports Closed Session Adjournment BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor and/or the City Manager may direct the City Clerk to select items which appear to be of particular public interest and to place these under the heading Special Order of Business, which shall be assigned a time of hearing and the Council shall hear these items at the time so specified, and Policy Resolution No. I (Establishing Order of Agenda) is hereby repealed. PASSED AND ADOPTED on this 7th day of September 2005, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: Marie Ulvila, City Clerk Mark Ashiku, Mayor Policy Resolution No. Page I of 1 ITEM NO. 6t~ DATE: September 7, 2005 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: NOTIFICATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL REGARDING THE REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT OF THE EFFLUENT PIPING AT WELL #3 BY WIPF CONSTRUCTION FOR A PRICE NOT TO EXCEED $9200.00 Submitted for the City Council's notification is the removal and replacement of the effluent piping at the City's well #3. This is necessary to allow the distribution piping to align with a new replacement pump's discharge plumbing due to the failure of the previous pump. City staff anticipated this would be necessary and pre-purchased a majority of the material a number of years ago to have it ready for any unanticipated modifications to well #3's piping and metering. The not to exceed cost of $9200.00 to Wipf Construction will be primarily for labor. The work is expected to take approximately three days and will be covered from Account #820-3908-302-000. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive notification concerning the removal and replacement of the City's well #3 effluent piping to be accomplished by Wipf Construction for a price not to exceed $9200.00 from Account #820-3908-302-000 ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTION: Citizen Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: N/A Bernie Ziemianek, Director of Public Utilities Alan Jamison, Water Treatment Plant Supervisor Candace Horsley, City Manager None Candace Horsley, City'~Vlanager AGENDA SUMMARY ITEM NO. 6z DATE: September 7, 2005 REPORT SUBJECT: REPORT OF THE ACQUISITION OF SERVICES FROM JOHN'S EXCAVATING FOR REMOVAL OF UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS IN THE AMOUNT OF $6,785.89 AND APPROVE BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $6,785.89 SUMMARY: In compliance with Section 1522 of the Ukiah City Code, this report is being submitted to the City Council for the purpose of reporting the acquisition of services costing $5,000 or more but less than $10,000. On July 20, 2005, Ken Yoder of BL Companies contacted staff regarding the discovery of three underground storage tanks (UST's) located predominantly on City of Ukiah property, which was acquired for the future widening of Gobbi Street, and partially on the southeast corner of the Rite Aid property near the intersection of South State Street and Gobbi Street. BL Companies is working under contract with Rite Aid to investigate possible contamination related to the UST's. BL Companies had contracted with John's Excavating for work at the site. Staff, with the City Manager's concurrence, agreed to share in the costs of excavation and removal of the UST's since the UST's were located partially on City property. Through a letter (Attachment 1) to Ken Yoder dated July 20, 2005, the City agreed to share in the costs and reserved the right to seek recovery of its expenditures from the responsible party, insurance company(ies) and/or government funding source. As stated in the letter, the City does not admit responsibility for the UST's. The purchasing officer issued a purchase order to John's Excavating in the amount of $6,785.89. John's Excavating completed work related to the removal of the UST's and backfill of the excavated area on July 22, 2005. RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1. Receive and file report regarding the acquisition of services from John's Excavating for removal of underground storage tanks in the amount of $6,785.89. 2. Approve budget amendment from the General Fund Balance in the amount of $6,785.89 to expenditure account 100.3110.250.000 ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: None. Citizen Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: N/A . Diana Steele, Director of Public Works/City Eng~n.ee(:~ Rick Seanor, Deputy Director of Public Works Candace Horsley, City Manager 1. Letter to Ken Yoder, BL Companies dated July 20, 2005 APPROVED: Candace Ho'rsley, City Mana~r RJS: AG - Rite Aid UST BA.SUM Affachme # July 20, 2005 Kenneth M. Yoder, P G BL Companies 830 Sir Thomas Court Harrisburg, PA 17109 RE: REMOVAL OF ABANDONED TANKS SITUATED ON CITY PROPERTY ADJACENT TO RITE AID PROPERTY Dear Mr. Yoder, Thank you for contacting us about the work that is being performed by your company on behalf of Rite Aid Corporation. As noted in the field this morning, your exploratory excavation has exposed capped off piping that may be connected to an abandoned tank (west end). We also noted the exposed end of another tank (middle), apparently a single-walled steel tank filled with concrete. You also IJointed out that your magnetometer survey has indicated there may also be another tank (east) in this location. As it appears that it is beneficial to the City as well as to Rite Aid Corporation's and/or ARCO's efforts to remediate contamination at the Rite Aid Site, B.L. Companies is authorized to expose, remove and dispose of the tank(s) found to be situated within the City owned property at this location. The City requires an application for an encroachment permit be provided. The City will waive the customary fee for the encroachment permit. Deputy Director of Public Works Rick Seanor will be a point of contact for the City. He can be reached at 707-463-6296 for any additional information. It has been confirmed that these tanks were filled with concrete. Records we have examined indicate that this was done before the City of Ukiahtook possession of the property. It is therefore clear that the City of Uki~h never stored fuel in these tanks and .therefore is not responsible for any contamination which may have originated in this vicinity. · It is understood that the City Will pay the cost of the exposure and removal of the tank(s), as well as a portion of your time for' the oversight. However the City reserves the right to seek recovery of its expenditures from the responsible party, insurance company(les) and/or any government funding source. By authorizing this work, the City of Ukiah is not admitting responsibility for the underground storage tan ks. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Please do not hesitate to contact me or Rick Seanor if you have any questions. Sincerely, Diana Steele City Engineer/Director of Public Works Cc: Candace Horsley, City Manager David Rapport, City Attorney Wayne Briley, Mendocino County DEH John's Excavating file 300 SEMINARY AVENUE UKIAH, CA 95482-5400 PhoneC¢ 707/463-6200 Fax'# 707/463-6204 Web Address: www. citvofukiah.com AGENDA SUMMARY ITEM NO. 6= DATE:September 7, 2005 REPORT SUBJECT: AUTHORIZATION OF EXPENDITURE OF $27,288 FOR ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE SERVICES AT THE UKIAH SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SITE SUMMARY: At staff's request, EBA Engineering (EBA) submitted a proposal (Attachment 1) for annual environmental compliance services at the Ukiah Solid Waste Disposal Site. This work involves preparation of required quarterly and annual reports which will be submitted to the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). EBA will prepare the necessary reports for storm water, surface water, leachate, groundwater, and landfill gas monitoring. Alpha Analytical Laboratories will collect and analyze storm water, surface water, leachate, and groundwater samples. Alpha will then forward the sample results to EBA in an electronic format to be incorporated into the reports. EBA has performed this same work for the last few years. Both the City and the RWQCB continue to be satisfied with the quality of EBA's reports. This year, EBA proposes additional work in order to meet RWQCB mandated data collection requirements for the Geotracker database. An information sheet on this database has been included as Attachment 2. EBA's proposal includes costs for initial data collection and quarterly updates to the Geotracker database. Funds are available for this work and are identified in the Fiscal Year 2005 / 2006 budget as shown in Attachment 3. Staff recommends authorization of this expenditure for environmental compliance services with EBA Engineering. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Authorize expenditure of $27,288 for environmental compliance services at the Ukiah Solid Waste Disposal Site. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: Direct staff to seek proposals from other firms and report back to Council. Citizen Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: N/A Diana Steele, Director of Public Works / City Engin.ee(---~'~ Rick Seanor, Deputy Director of Public Works/~~ Candace Horsley, City Manager 1. Proposal and Cost Estimate from EBA Engineering 2. Geotracker information sheet 3. Fiscal Year 2005 / 2006 budget sheet APPROVED: RJS: AGebaProfSvcs-16 Candace Horsley, City Manag~ · ' N~/N~"~"/~/N~ ~IVIL & ENVIROIVMENTAL ENGINEERS RECEIVED AUG 3 0 2005 O~TY OF UK~AH DEPT. OF PUBLIC WORKS August 29, 2005 Mr. Rick Seanor, P.E. Deputy Director of Public Works City of Ukiah 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482-5400 Proposal for Environmental Compliance and State Geotracker Services City of Ukiah Landfill Mendocino County, California Dear Rick: Per your request during our telephone conversation on August 19, 2005, EBA Engineering (EBA) is pleased to present this Proposal to amend the original "Agreement for Professional Services" dated October 9, 2002 to incorporate an additional one (1) year of environmental compliance services at the City of Ukiah Landfill. Whereas the original agreement encompassed four (4) primary tasks (Tasks 1 through 4), three of which represented one-time services (Tasks 1, 3 and 4), this Proposal corresponds exclusively to the extension of Task 2 for annual environmental compliance monitoring. Services associated with Task 2 under the existing agreement will be completed by October 15, 2005 upon submittal of the 2005 Third Quarter Detection Monitoring Report. EBA proposes to implement the Task 2 services for the same fee included in the original agreement. An itemized breakdown of costs for the specific services is provided below. The corresponding cost table is attached at the end of this Proposal. · Task 2A - Stormwater Monitoring: $ 1,594 · Task 2B - Surface Water/Leachate/Groundwater Monitoring: $14,596 · Task 2C - Landfill Gas Monitoring: $ 7,448 · Total Cost Estimate for Task 2: $ 23,638 As part of the amended agreement, EBA will perform the same Task 2 scope of services and generate the same number and quality of deliverables as outlined in the original agreement. Furthermore, the corresponding services will be subject to the sa stipulated in the original agreement. LAprojecA958MmendmentsXamend3.DOC 825 Sonomo Avenue, Suite C Santo Rom, Colifornio 95404 {707} 544-0784 FAX {707} 544-0866 Also in Southern California In addition to the aforementioned services, we have also prepared is a cost estimate to implement the State Geotracker services for electronic submittal of data and reports in accordance with Title 23 of the California Code of Regulations (23 CCR), Division 3, Chapter 30, Article 2, Sections 3890 through 3895. The proposed Geotracker Services have been divided into two (2) separate tasks. The first task (Task GT1) corresponds to initial setup of the State Geotracker system and represents a one-time service. Requirements of this task include surveying XY coordinates for all the existing monitoring wells and submitting PDF copies of a site map, well construction information and boring logs. For the purpose of this Proposal, it is assumed that the City will provide EBA with hard copies of all boring logs, whereupon EBA will create the corresponding PDF copies. The second task (Task GT2), in turn, corresponds to quarterly updating of the Geotracker system as new data is collected, as well as preparing PDF copies of future quarterly and annual report submittals. The proposed costs to implement Tasks GT1 and GT2 are presented below. The corresponding cost table is attached at the end of this Proposal. · Task GT1 - Initial Set-up (one-time service): $ 2,800 · Task GT2 - Annual Quarterly Updates (cost per year): $ 850 · Total Cost Estimate for Task GT: $ 3, 650 Based on the cost information presented herein, the total estimated cost to implement Tasks 2 and GT is $27,288 for the one-year contract period covered by this amendment. EBA appreciates the opportunity to present this Proposal for the City's consideration. If you should have any questions regarding the information contained herein, please do not hesitate to contact our office at (707) 544-0784. Sincerely, EBA ENGINEERING Mike Delmanowski, C.E.G., C.Hg. Senior Hydrogeologist President Enclosures: Table 1 (Cost Proposal) L:Xproject5958MmendmentsXamend3.DOC o m ~ ~.~ ~ ~ o o o ............ Ca.[i:':'omia Underground Storage Tank Program C::alifornia tqome Tuesday, August 30, 2005 Home Board Business Laws/Regulations News/Media Info Regional Boards Water Education Water Rights UST PROGRAM HOME UST Program Elements Leak Prevention Cleanup Enforcement Tank Tester Licensing Cleanup Fund UST Information Online Access to Geotracker Electronic Submittal of Information (ESI) to Geotracker Training/Workshops Publications Statutes & Regulations How to File a Petition Regu_ I~at~ory Agencies LG Letters Forms Email Subscription ~ Subscribe ~ Unsubscribe ............... ~i~e~ Ma~ Regional Boards (1) North Coast ~ Caiifor~i Envkonmenl~ P;ote¢tion A~nc¥ STATE WATER RESOU ES CONTROL ARD UST Program - GeoTracker Isearch My CA ~ Th~s Site About Geotracker Geotracker is a database and geographic information system (GIS) that provides online access to environmental data. It tracks regulatory data about leaking underground fuel tanks (LUFT), Department of Defense (DOD), Spills- Leaks-Investigations-Cleanups (SLIC) and Landfill sites. The database also contains information about public drinking water wells. Geotracker uses com~able software to allow users to access data over the Internet. GeoTracker was developed pursuant to a mandate by the California State Legislature (AB 592, SB 1189) to investigate the feasibility of establishing a statewide GIS for LUFT sites. In its pilot phase, Geotracker assembled public drinking water well and LUFT data from two study areas, Santa Clara and Santa Monica. Now, Geotracker includes data for non-UST cleanup cases in addition to LUFT cases. This makes it an important resource to both regulators and the public. All of the information formerly contained in the LUSTIS database now resides in the Geotracker database. Some historical LUSTIS Quarterly Reports (1999-2000) can still be viewed. Geotracker allows one to obtain graphical and textual information about any LUFT, Underground Storage Tank (UST), Above Ground Tank (AGT), SLIC, DoD and Landfill site by entering a site address, partial site address, or site name. Other information that can be graphically displayed as a layer on Geotracker, includes highways and roads, topographic maps, surface water boundaries, watershed boundaries, groundwater basins, and hydrologic vulnerability areas. The tools built into Geotracker can quickly identify and display the number of public drinking water wells within various distances of LUFT sites. Due to the security concerns, these tools are not currently available to the public. Further, a set of on-line tools allows the user to integrate well specific and contaminant site specific information and facilitates the analysis of various aspects of vulnerability. In other words, Geotracker gives users the ability to assess potential threats to drinking water sources. Geotracker Help Desk geotracker@waterboards.ca.gov 1-866-480-1028 ( updated 8/16/05 ) http://www~waterb~ards~ca~g~v/cwph~me/ust/c~eanup/e~ectr~nic-rep~rting/ab~ut~htm~ 8/30/2005 / ITEM NO. b:~/q DATE: SEPTEMBER 7, 2005 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: AWARD OF BID FOR VARIOUS SIZE POLE MOUNT AND PAD MOUNT TRANSFORMERS IN THE AMOUNT OF $51,501.23 AS SUMMARIZED IN REPORT The formal bid process was followed in sending a Request for Quotation (R.F.Q.) for nine different size transformers. The City Clerk opened sealed bids on August 18, at 2:00 p.m. The bidders were: . 2. 3. 4. WESTERN STATES ELECTRIC- ERMCO WESTERN STATES ELECTRIC - COOPER WESCO - ABB WRATHALL & KRUSI, INC.- HOWARD INDUSTRIES Bids were evaluated on price, delivery time, load losses, size, and availability of circuit protection. The bids are total cost, including tax and shipping. Based on staff's evaluation the lowest compliant bidder for each unit is as summarized in the attached table. The transformers will be placed in warehouse stock and will be charged out on a project-by- project basis. They have been budgeted in the 2005/06 Fiscal Year in Account Number 800.3646.690.000. Sufficient funds are available. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Award bids totaling $51,501.23 as follows: Western States Electric/Cooper in the amount of $36,860.53 for five 5 KVA, three 10 KVA, five 15KVA and six 25 KVA pole mount transformers, one 500 KVA and one 1000 KVA pad mount transformer; Western States/Ermco in the amount of $8,484.55 for one 100 KVA pole mount and one 112 KVA pad mount transformer; Wrathall & Krusi in the amount of $6,156.15 for one 150 KVA pad mount transformer. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: Reject all bids and direct staff to re- advertise and re-solicit bids Citizen Advised: N/A Requested by: Stan Bartolomei, Electric Supervisor Prepared by: Judy Jenney, Purchasing & Warehouse Assistant Coordinated with: Candace Horsley, City Manager Attachment: 1. Bid Tabulation APPROVED' Candace Horsley, C~Manager o o~ o o~o~ z z z m o ~o~o~ z z o r.1 ~1 :z: ~I ITEM NO. g ~ DATE: September ?,-~005 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MANAGER/ASSISTANT TO THE CITY MANAGER JOB DESCRIPTION AND SALARY CLASSIFICATION The City Council approved a new position of "Economic Development Manager/Assistant to the City Manager" at its fiscal year 2005/2006 budget hearings, based upon two years' partial funding through a grant and funding through the Redevelopment Agency. This position is proposed to provide an emphasis on economic redevelopment and, in addition to assist the City Manager in a staff capacity with highly responsible special projects and programs, assist representatives of business, real estate and the development community in working with the City; develop and implement business retention and expansion programs, and to manage other ancillary functions such as the downtown parking district, grant programs and the cable franchise agreement. Enclosed for your review and approval is the proposed job description. The salary classification recommended is at management level, Range 625 - $4,696.45 - $5,708.56/month, which is reflective of the job duties and scope of responsibilities in the job description. Staff recommends Council approval of the job description and salary classification. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve proposed Economic Development Manager/Assistant to the City Manager job description and salary classification, as approved in FY 2005/06 budget. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: , Do not approve proposed job description and salary classification. Refer to Staff for amendments. Citizen Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: 1. . N/A N/A Melody Harris, Personnel Director Candace Horsley, City Manager Proposed Economic Development Manager/Assistant to the City Manager Job Description Management Unit Salary Schedule APPROVED: Candace Horsley, City M~ager 3:MOU~SREconDevCoord JOB DESCRIPTION ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MANAGER/ASSISTANT TO THE CITY MANAGER DEFINITION Under administrative direction, to assist in the planning, directing, supervising, and coordinating of a program of redevelopment and economic development strategies and activities; provide highly responsible staff assistance to the Ci lanager, on projects and programs; assist representatives of business, real es the development community in working with the City; develop and im business retention and expansion programs; serve as primary liaison City and downtown businesses, and do related work as assigned. DISTINGUISHING CHARACTERISTICS This is a professional level management Office. The incumbent exercises independent j~ Manager's Office and the economic development economy. Work involves res for the appli and skills to effect research, analys ing, and development and redevelopment pro! u~res judgment. Assigned duties and respon,, ire of normal office hours, weekends, and in the ger's to the City private and public sector of professional knowledge ~entation of economic nt use of independent k to be performed outside EXAMPLES Of (These exam performed. encompassln M=Major The the d~ only as il perfo of the various types of work are neither restricted to nor all- this job title.) (E=Essential Duty; resp~ ~1 projects PI~ ~nd econ involve~ Identify and analyzi~ ~nal staff assistance to the City Manager on as assigned. (E) a comprehensive program of redevelopment, development activities including planning, community ~ce, and implementation with project timetables. (E-M) redevelopment, housing, and economic needs by evaluating with the assistance of community groups such as business org developers, governmental agencies and departments. (E-M) Provide staff assistance to the City Council, Redevelopment Agency, Design Review Board, Low and Moderate Income Housing Committee, and various commissions and committees as assigned. (E) Develops and implements programs for business enhancement, business retention and business expansion and improve the quality and mix of uses of the downtown area; develops directories and publications to assist companies. (E-M) Research economic development challenges and solutions, and prepare a variety of comprehensive reports and statistical tabulations for goals, objectives, and policy development (E-M) Compiles and maintains website information containing inventory of economic resources, and other information relating to factors of business locations. Work with and respond to citizen concerns and requests for information. (E) Serves as Public Relations Officer. (E) Prepare and administer the Redevelopment budgets. (E) Responsible for management and operations of the Downtown Parking District. Coordinate activities with other City departments and divisions, community groups, and outside agencies. (E) In coordination with the Chamber of Commerce, Main Street Program, and the Economic Development Finance Corporation (EDFC), makes presentations to business and community groups; maintains liais, other County departments, State agencies, cities and communi advises and/or participates in various workshops, public public meetings; and may represent the City Plan, coordinate, and supervise the program and various related contracts. May act as City Manager in his/her abse Assists in auditing compliance, implementing public access for the Work flexible hours. Perform other duties as ned. ory committees, and/or IS. (E,M) ;velopment Grant citizen and se QUALIFICATIONS Knowledge of: Principles and housing and of public and private se decisions; employr the ~omic dev agencies locating and proce zoning, and economic deveh in t related t( ic c( development, redevelopment, and includi and program management; business expansion or location ues related to business financing, ~ted programs; programs and methods for sustaining t. within a municipality; working knowledge of order to effectively assist interested individuals in 3ounty; federal, state and local ordinances, policies .conomic development, redevelopment, housing, planning, ues of marketing and promotion as related to tourism and vities; community characteristics including planning, zoning, schools, budgets, onal facilities and civic attractions; basic statistical methods for management anal' ; property values and effect of economic trends on value and price; owner participation and Disposition and Development Agreements, leases and other financing packages; principles and practices of effective supervision, performance management, financial analysis and negotiating techniques. Ability to: Plan, organize and administer comprehensive economic development, redevelopment, and housing related programs; identify and respond to community and City Council issues, concerns, and needs; cultivate and maintain positive working relationships with members of the public and community organizations, business leaders, City staff, City Council and representatives of other government, redevelopment and economic development agencies; prepare and monitor program budgets; interpret and explain City policies and procedures; coordinate multiple projects and meet critical deadlines; work independently and exercise considerable independent judgment in resolving issues; gather and analyze a variety of complex data, including economic studies, financial statements, marketing studies, plans, specifications, and bid documents; prepare comprehensive written and oral reports; communicate clearly and concisely, orally and in writing; foster a spirit of team work and cooperation with City staff and appropriate organizations in meeting the City's economic development and redevelopment objectives; self-start and meet established deadlines; utilize computer to perform word processing, spreadsheet functions and desktop hing; negotiate and analyze real estate transactions; recommend policies a~ programs in support of the local economy that assist in strengt the City's technology infrastructure, education opportunities and business rell Experience and Education: Any combination of training, experience and required knowledge and abilities, would b knowledge and abilities would be: which woul( provide the typical the Experience - Sufficient years of ' reasingly resp 9 professional experience in public economic development plat community redevelopment, or public administration involving related possession of the knowledge and abilities listed ~ally, th years of experience in economic development related work wo~ experience. Education - Bachelor' public or business or a closely om an urban colh e or university with a degree in ing, community development, economics License or This In drive, in( ossess an a use of City vehicle while conducting City business. y capable of operating the vehicle safely California motor vehicle operator's license. IDITIONS Incumbents in are expected to communicate verbally, in person, by telephone and at c, sites and in meeting settings. A computer terminal is used when designing pla! and when producing correspondence and other written materials. This requires the use of repetitive arm-hand movements. Working in an office environment requires a sustained posture in a seated position for prolonged periods of time. Outdoor work is required in the inspection of various land use developments and construction sites. While conducting an inspection it may require the incumbent to walk over rough, uneven or rocky surfaces, and to step over trenches and other obstacles. The incumbent will be occasionally required to stand; sit; walk; use hands to finger, handle, feel or operate objects, tools, or controls; and reach with hands and arms. The incumbent must be able to occasionally lift and/or move up to 20 pounds. PROBATIONARY PERIOD: Employees serve a six-month probationary period. If performance is not satisfactory, an employee may be terminated without cause and recourse, or returned to their former position during this time. APPLICATIONS Applications must be filled out completely and received by the Personnel Department by 5:00 p.m. on the final filing date. Resumes are encouraged, but cannot be accepted in lieu of an official application unless specified. All statements made on applications are subject to investigation and verification. False will be cause for disqualification or removal from the Eligibility List. SELECTION Applications will be reviewed and those applica~ qualified will be selected for the examination ~cess. variety of techniques designed to test ap perform the duties and responsibilities of ranking candidates by their overall score and candidates on this list. Em t offers may b reference and background check. appear ~mong the best This include a ;dge, skills, to List will be by will be from the ect to a City paid physical, SALARY: Total annual com management medical, dental, v The City is a of the employee employee. available package ex plan nce Emplo includes 15 days LrS. $4, ;.45 - $5,708.56 per month, plus paid holidays, vacation, and sick leave. System, 2.7% at 55 plan. 7% fees base salary and is paid by the deferred compensation programs are FILING Submit a co Seminary Aven~ received after the Ukiah application form to the Personnel Office, 300 than 5:00 p.m. on Applications or incomplete applications will not be considered NOTE TO APPLICANTS: You will be required to submit verification of your citizenship or legal right to work in the United States at the time of an offer of employment. Employment will be subject to verification of this requirement. The provisions of this bulletin do not constitute an expressed or implied contract. Any provision contained in the bulletin may be modified or revoked. The City of Ukiah is an Equal Opportunity Employer and does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, religion, sexual orientation, age, disability or marital status. In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if special accommodations are necessary at any stage of the testing process, please notify the Personnel Department in advance at (707) 463-6244 so your request may be reviewed prior to the occurrence of testing. 3:\recruits\economicdevcoord MANAGEMENT UNIT 7.0% Increase for Miscellaneous EPMC 10% Increase for Safety EPMC 2.0% MOU Increase RangeI Position SALARY SCHEDULE IMPLEMENTED 10/0112004 Includes 7% Employer Paid PERS Misc. Member Contribution Includes 10% Employer Paid PERS Safety Member Contribution MOU Effective 10/112004- First Year (2004-2005) A I a I C I O I E MONTHLY SCHEDULE Electrical Distribution Engineer Public Works Direc{or 5,406.7'7 5,131.26 Senior Civil En( ineer ' 4,896.64 Electrical Supervisor 4,777.89 Fire Battalion Chief * ** 4,696.45 !Water Utilities Project En~.ineer Treatment Plant Supervisor 5,677.11 5,387.82 5,141.47 Risk et Officer Operations Manager Planner II Airport Manager Public Works Supervisor Executive Assistant :; 5,960.97 5,657.21 5,398.54 5,016.78 5,267.62 4,931.27 5,177.83 4,579.94 4,808.94 5,049.39 4,561.12 4,789.18 5,028.64 4,368.78 4,587.22 4,816.58 4,159.74 4,367.73 4,586.12 4,215.14 IT Supervisor Community Services Supervisor Cultural Arts/Museum Director Associate Planner I 4,014.42 4,014.41 3,823.25 . Purchasing Agent 3,427.53 Water & Sewer Maintenance Supervisor - Golf Supervisor 3,291.86 ~rks Supervisor - Recreation Supervisor 3,122.84 3,598.91 3,456.45 3,278.98 105.00% * Safety PERS member ** Includes Advanced Fire Certificate pay *** Includes 2.5% Certificate Pay 6,259.02 6,571 5,940.07 6,237.07 5,668.47 5,951.89 5,531.00 5,807.55 5,436.72 5,301.86 5,566.95 5,280.07 5,544.07 5,057.41 5,310.28 4,815.43 5,056.20 4,425.90 4,647.20 4,879.56 . . . 4,215.13 3,778.86 3,629.27 3,442.93 105.00% 4,425.89 . . 3,967.80 3,810.73 - 3,615.08 105.00% 4,647.18 . 4,166.19 - 4,001.27 3,795.83 105.00% Salary Schedules Revised-Mike Pdnted 8/11/2005 Managemet 10-04 AGENDA SUMMARY ITEM NO. 6p DATE: September 7, 2005 REPORT SUBJECT: REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL REGARDING THE ANNUAL PURCHASE OF FERTILIZER, GRASS SEED, INSECTICIDE, AND FUNGICIDE FROM SIERRA PACIFIC TURF SUPPLY FOR THE UKIAH MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE IN THE AMOUNT OF $8,408.03. SUMMARY: Pursuant to the requirements of Section 1522 of the Municipal Code, Staff is filing with the City Council this report regarding the annual purchase of fertilizer, grass seed, insecticide, and fungicide for the Ukiah Municipal Golf Course in the amount of $8,408.03. Requests For Quotation (RFQ) sheets were sent out to all qualified bidders who stock these specialty products for routine golf course maintenance (See Attachment #1). Bids were returned by Target Specialty Products and Sierra Pacific Turf Supply. Sierra Pacific Turf Supply was the overall Iow bidder. This item is budgeted in the 695.6120.690.000 account. Refer to the following table for a complete summary of bids. Bid Summary Table Sierra Pacific Turf Supply $8,408.03* Target Specialty Products $9,500.02* *Tax and Shipping Included RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive report regarding the purchase of fertilizer, grass seed, insecticide, and fungicide from Sierra Pacific Turf Supply for the Ukiah Municipal Golf Course in the amount of $8,408.03. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: 1. N/A Citizen Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: N/A N/A Sage Sangiacomo, Community/General Services Director and Jim Hughes, Golf Supervisor Candace Horsley, City Manager and Mary Horger, Purchasing Supervisor N/A Candace Ho~sley ager Attachment #1 A_I'~ of UKIAH Ukiah C;~. P?,enc 7()7-4tG-623 L Fax ?', 7_ ;: ~_~234 ~'2!' FOP, FAX RESPONSE WILL BE ACCEPTED RETUFIN THIS FORM Tills IS NOT AN ()RI)t::R I DATE: 8/8/2005 ~'N'O. E 24630, S I, 32 Xl?y AIJ, BIDS SttALI; BE F,().IL UKI..klt, C_V I)i;SCI~HPTION UNIT PRICE ,-"<n [,, >tm.d b:l<2 ~, ,:\~xi,:rsor, s 14-3-19 (i 'c,.'ms Fertilize,, r' -,.,..,.,, ,. ']'cchriolo~v Struck ~1"I'-S3S1 5'* ?,~u::,~ h:_tgs. Grass Seed, t'crennial Rye. Crce?in:5 l-rescue, bCc',:~Ickv B[uc }3lend NEt' 3~} bill our it~.jbrmc, tion completely in box below. TOTAL Ir, C:kSE OF DEFAULT, the City of t!kian may p'cszl~ tr',e irc:ms quoted cn frcm sources and hold the or:,8 r'al bidder :iasie for any i',:r.~as ~d Ti~e prce, terms, ce!ivery point, and deive5, date may r, hv~<ual~y or coilect~vely basis of the awarding sf the bid. 6. ALL BIDS MUST BE SIGNED. 7. n s,~b nitt ng the above, tt7e vendor agrees that the acce:ctance of any or ali quo:tat c,,~s by the Cry of Uki2Jh v;ithir~ 3Q days cgnst~tutes a contract. ITEM NO. 6 q DATE: September 7, 2005 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL REGARDING THE ANNUAL PURCHASE OF 50 TONS OF TOP DRESSING SAND AND 50 TONS OF #20 DEEP CORING SAND FOR THE UKIAH MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE FROM BORGES TRANSFER IN THE AMOUNT OF $5,583.82. Pursuant to the requirements of Section 1522 of the Ukiah Municipal Code, staff is filing with the City Council this report regarding the annual purchase of 50 tons of top dressing sand and 50 tons of #20 deep coring sand for the Ukiah Municipal Golf Course from Borges Transfer, in the amount of $5,583.82. Borges Transfer is the only known qualified bidder in the region who is able to supply sand that meets United States Golfing Association specifications. This item is budgeted in the 695.6120.690.000 account. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive report regarding purchase of top dressing sand and #20 deep coring sand from Borges Transfer in the amount of $5,583.82. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: 1. N/A Citizen Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: N/A City Council Sage Sangiacomo, Community/General Services Director Candace Horsley, City Manager, Mary Horger, Purchasing Supervisor, and Jim Hughes, Golf Supervisor None C"andace Horsley, anager AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT ITEM NO.' DATE: September 7, 2005 SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF FINAL MAP FOR WOODBURY MAJOR SUBDIVISION SUMMARY: This agenda item consists of the review and approval of the Final Map for the Woodbury Major Subdivision Map (MS #03-57), which was submitted by Mr. Stephen Woodbury to subdivide the 2.99-acre subject property occupied by the Main Street Garden apartment complex into 39 parcels. The tentative map for this project was approved by the City Council in October, 2004, to allow the division of the site into 38 individual lots with areas of 1,391 to 1,527 square feet and lot widths that would be less than the 60 foot-width normally required. It also creates a 1.9-acre common-use area (Parcel "A") for common driveway access lanes, recreational areas, and other areas open to all residents of the complex. The proposed land division is part of a multi-faceted project to convert the existing apartment complex to individually-owned condominium units. This project also required the submittal of Rezone No. 03-56 to change the zoning designation for the subject property to the R-2 PD (Medium Density-Planned Development Combining) zone and effectively establish the unique lot area and lot width dimensions needed to convert the existing apartments to condominium units with a common-use area. This zone change was approved by the City Council's adoption of Ordinance No. 1085 in September of 2004. (continued on Paqe 2) RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1. Approve the Final Map for Major Subdivision Map No. 03-57. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTION: 1. Do not approve the Final Map and provide direction to staff. Citizen Advised: N/A Requested by: Mr. Stephen Woodbury Prepared by: Dave Lohse, Associate Planner Coordinated with: Candace Horsley, City Manager and Diana Steele, City Engineer Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Final Map of Major Subdivision No. 03-57 and Supplemental Sheets APPROVED: Candace Horsley, Manager CITY ENGINEER CERTIFICATION: On July 11, 2005, Diana Steele, the Ukiah City Engineer, reviewed and checked the Final Map and certified that it is substantially the same as it appears on the Tentative Map. Based on this review, Ms. Steele also concludes that the Final Map was prepared in accordance with Title 7, Division 2, Chapter 2 of the Government Code of the State of California and with the Ukiah City Code. PLANNING COMMISSION CERTIFICATION: The Ukiah Planning Commission reviewed the Final Map at a meeting held on August 24, 2005, and voted 5-0 to present the Final Map to the City Council. A copy of the Final Map signed by the Chairman of the Planning Commission is included as an attachment to this Agenda Summary. ATI'ACHMENT /, , LOCATION MAP Major Subdivision Map No. 04-57: Woodbury 541-571 South Main Street (APN 003-302-55) .~ITY OF UKIAH CMC CENTER 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 300' APPROXIMATE SCALE: 1 inch = 500 feet ATTACHMENT 1 Attachment # ,, ~.-~ mgm ~ LANDS O{c ALEX R. yHO4,4~S & CO, a:zo o.e. a~ ~.c.e. ~ ~.. ~ ~-,,.,,- ~ 53~' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 5450'~ ~ ...... ~ N ~'4e'3~' w ~. ~ . N 00'4,6'31" 53.00' I 53.5o' b b 53, )0' 53.00' 'o Attachment Attachment #_ Attachment # 2.-5' d Attachment AGENDA SUMMARY ITEM NO. ~' ,~ DATE: September 7, 2005 REPORT SUBJECT: REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL REGARDING THE PURCHASE OF THREE ITRON FC200 HAND HELD DATA COLLECTORS AND COMMUNICATION CRADLES FROM NATIONAL METER & AUTOMATION. SUMMARY: Pursuant to the requirements of Section 1522 of the Municipal Code, Staff is filing with the City Council this report regarding the purchase of three Itron FC200 hand held data collectors and desk dock charging/communication cradles in the amount of $9,475.54. This equipment is used daily by the Utility Meter Reading Staff for collecting electric and water meter readings and is replacing equipment originally purchased in 1996. Request For Bid (RFB) sheets were sent to the following known vendors of this specialty equipment: 1. Itron, Oakland CA; 2. National Meter & Automation, Greenwood Village, CO; 3. Vintage Water Works Supply, Healdsburg, CA. One bid was received from National Meter & Automation in the amount of $9,475.54. These items are budgeted in the 800.3765.800.000 account. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive report regarding the purchase of three Itron FC200 hand held data collectors and charging/communication cradles from National Meter & Automation, Greenwood Village CO in the amount of $9,475.54. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: 1. N/A Citizen Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: N/A N/A Paulette Klingbeil, Information Technology Supervisor Candace Horsley, City Manager N/A APPROVEDi Candace Horsley, City Ma'~ager AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT ITEM NO.: ~o.~ DATE: September 7, 2005 SUBJECT: CONTINUANCE OF MINOR SUBDIVISION MAP-SUBDIVISION REQUIREMENT EXCEPTION NO. 05-19 SUMMARY: The City Planning Department, with the concurrence of the applicants, is requesting that this item be continued to the City Council meeting scheduled for September 21, 2005, to allow staff and the City Attorney sufficient time to address issues raised when the Planning Commission reviewed the project on August 24 of this year. Staff has mailed a courtesy notice to all persons who have expressed interest in the project and to all of the property owners of all properties within 300 feet of the subject property to inform them of this action. RECOMMENDED ACTION' 1. Continue the item to the September 21, 2005 meeting of the City Council. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTION: 1. N/A Citizen Advised: Courtesy Notice to Neighboring Property Owners Requested by: N/A Prepared by: Dave Lohse, Associate Planner Coordinated with' Candace Horsley, City Manager and Diana Steele, City Engineer Attachments: APPROVED: Candace Horsley, C~nager AGENDA SUMMARY ITEM NO' ~'~ DATE: September 7, 2005 REPORT SUB3ECT: CONSIDERATION AND DIRECTION CONCERNING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDED REVISIONS TO THE CITY SIGN REGULATIONS SUMMARY: Over the past several years, Staff and the Planning Commission have been working on revising the City's sign regulations. The original direction to undertake this project was provided by the Planning Commission and City Council after a series of public discussions about the existing regulations. The General Plan also calls for sign regulations that "focus on creating an environment in which signs can serve marketing needs in an attractive and informational manner." The Planning Commission has now completed its public hearing process and discussions, and is recommending that the sign regulations be revised. This Agenda item is intended to provide a City Council public hearing process to consider the Planning Commission's recommendations. The Council can accept or reject the recommendations, modify the regulations, or retain the regulations as they currently exist. Staff expects that more than one public hearing will be needed for the Council's review process. Once the Council has completed reviewing, discussing, and making determinations on the proposed regulations, Staff will return with a formal Ordinance for adoption. (continued on page 2) RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1) Conduct a public hearing; 2) begin reviewing and discussing the proposed sign regulations; and 3) continue the public hearing to a date certain. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTION: Do not review or discuss the proposed revisions to the sign regulations and provide direction to Staff. Citizens Advised: Publicly noticed according to the requirements of the Ukiah Municipal Code Requested by: City Planning Commission Prepared by: Charley Stump, Director of Planning and Community Development Coordinated with: Candace Horsley, City Manager and David Rapport, City Attorney Attachments: 1. 2. 3. ! Recommended revised Sign Regulations (previously distributed to City Council). Correspondence received from the Main Street Program Design Committee Planning Commission minutes and Staff Reports, dated April 27th, IVlay 11th, and .lune 22, 2005 Excerpt from the General Plan Community Design Element -"Signs" Draft sign brochures Sign Ordinance revision project mailing list Candace'Horsley, City Ma'~er BACKGROUND: Staff's original approach to this project was to completely abandon the existing regulations and prepare a new set of standards that would be easier for the public, Staff, and decision makers to use. We reviewed a number of recently adopted Ordinances from other communities, surveyed our community, and prepared a draft for preliminary review. ]:t was a much leaner set of regulations intended to eliminate duplication and vagueness, and to reflect what was currently occurring in terms of signs being proposed by businesses. Concern was expressed that it was difficult to compare the initial revised regulations with the existing regulations, and that the revised regulations included provisions that were unfriendly to business. The latter comment focused on a proposed reduction in the total amount of signage permitted on a parcel, a reduction in the height of freestanding signs, a reduction in the height of freeway oriented signage, a number of inconsistencies, and new non-conforming sign regulations. In response, Staff met with interested groups to discuss the regulations and explore alternatives and optional approaches. Staff then produced a revised draft that used the existing sign regulations as a base document, and used bold (added language) and ~tri~co'~t (deleted language) to illustrate proposed modifications. Other modifications were made such as adding a "creative sign permit" process that provides flexibility for unusual and interesting approaches to signage. PLANNZNG COMMZSSTON REVZEW AND RECOMMENDATZONS: The Planning Commission conducted three public hearings to receive input, and then formulated a recommendation to the City Council (see attachment No. 3). The following Table lists the Planning Commission's primary proposed modifications to the existing sign regulations: SUMMARY OF PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED DRAFT ORDINANCE September 2005 STANDARD OR REGULATION Section numbers to direct reader Total commercial sign area allowed Height of commercial freestanding sign Height of freestanding freeway oriented sign List of Exempt Signs? EXISTING ORDINANCE No 1 ¼ square feet per 1-foot of parcel frontage on street 30 feet (or height of bldg) Taller with Variance 50 feet wi discretionary review Yes - 13 exempt signs PROPOSED ORDINANCE Yes 1 square feet per 1-foot of parcel frontage on street 20 feet (or height of bldg) Taller with Use Permit 30 feet 50 feet w/discretionary review Yes - 26 exempt signs Time period for special event banners Criteria for sign review Design standards Banners allowed? Provisions for historic signs? Nonconforming sign regulations Planning Commission discretion Abandoned sign regulations Tool for seeking relief from requirements "Creative" Sign Permits Licensed sign contractor required to install signs? Are murals allowed? Are sandwich board (A-frame) signs allowed? 30 days No No Temporary only No Yes Yes -with discretionary permit Yes Variance No No Yes- with Planning Commission review and approval Yes - 6 square foot maximum size and located out of right-of- way 30 days 60 days for schools Yes Yes Temporary only - Community themed pennants/banners can be permanent with Zoning Administrator approval Yes Yes Use Permit (Findings more related to aesthetics) Yes Yes -with some exceptions Yes- with Planning Commission review and approval. Murals under 100 square feet are exempt from PC review. Yes - 4 square foot maximum, cannot block pedestrian traffic, must adhere to design standards Yes Yes -with discretionary permit- limited to design and architectural issues CONTROVERSTAL TSSUES: The primary controversial issues are: 1. Changing the standard of 1 1/~ square feet of commercial signage per l-lineal foot of street frontage to 1-square foot, and changing the maximum total for a site from 500 square feet to 300 square feet. It is very rare that a commercial business eligible for 500 square feet of signs actually proposes this much signage. There has been a trend to use less signage that is more in scale with the size and architecture of buildings on particular sites. The Planning Commission concluded that is was reasonable to modify the regulations to reflect the current size trend, and that this change would not unduly impact the marketing or advertising needs of businesses. 2. Changing the maximum height of freestanding non-freeway oriented commercial signs from 30-feet to 20-feet. One of the research exercises Staff performed was to drive the major commercial corridors and observe the freestanding commercial signs. While a few exceeded 20-feet in height, the majority did not. The Planning Commission concluded that a 20-foot heath limit was reasonable, and that a taller sign to a maximum of 30-feet could be pursued through the discretionary review process. 3. Changing the maximum height of freeway oriented signs from 50-feet to 30-feet. The Planning Commission felt that a 30-foot tall sign along the freeway in the vicinity of major cross streets was reasonable and would balance advertising needs with aesthetic quality. The proposed regulations include a provision to permit a taller sign through the discretionary review process. The Planning Commission concluded that this was a reasonable change. ENVTRONMENTAL REVTEW: The Planning Commission determined that the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) did not apply to the proposed new sign regulations because it is covered by the general rule that CEQA only applies to projects that have the potential for causing significant effects on the environment. Tn this case, the Planning Commission concluded that it can be determined with certainty that there is no possibility that implementation of the proposed regulations would have a significant effect on the environment, and therefore they are not subject to CEQA. This determination was primarily based on the finding that the proposed regulations would result in less signage per parcel/business and Citywide that the existing regulations currently allow. CONCLUSzONS: The sign regulation revision project has been worked on for many years. The Planning Commission has discussed some aspect of it eight times through workshops, public hearings and general discussions. The City Council has discussed it or received status reports on three occasions. Announcements and status reports have been shared with interested groups and organizations, as well as with sign contractors and companies. While not everyone agrees with the Planning Commission recommendations, Staff believes that they are reasonable and successfully balance the important need to advertise with the important goal of improving community aesthetics. RECOMMENDAT]:ON: 1) Conduct a public hearing; 2) begin reviewing and discussing the proposed sign regulations; and 3) continue the public hearing to a date certain. UI AH MAIN STREET PROGRAM · Board of Directors Robert Palafox Building Designer President Richard Hansen SaberNet Vice President Erin Powis Savings Bank Treasurer Mike Spencer I, WVNE & KMKX Secretary Brian Carter Carter, Behnke, C &Bacik R/chard P. Ruff Architect Lynda Hassett Shaklee Distributer John Bogner Realty World Jim Wattenburger 3ounty Supervisor rom L/den ~hotography ludy Pruden ~lanning Commissioner ';ity of Ukiah .arty DeKnoblough ';ity of Ukiah 4afl Rodin ;ouncil Member ;ity of Ukiah oy Beeler !xecutive Director manda Hair ssistant in charge )~ Promotions THE MISSION OF THE UKIAH MAIN STREET PROGRAM IS TO PRESERVE AND ENHANCE WHAT MAKES UKIAH A GREAT PLACE May 27, 2005 Mr. Charley Stump Director of Planning City of Ukiali 300 Seminary Ave. Ukiah, Ca. 95482 A?oChmenf # _ ~_---- (/ Dear Mr. Stump: On behalf of the Ukiah Main Street Program's Design Committee, I am writing to thank you for your efforts to ensure that our community has comprehensive sign guidelines. The revised sign ordinance reflects and encourages a healthy business climate that allows signs to contribute to an interesting streetscape and an inviting business community. This revised Sign Ordinance has been prepared in accordance with Ukiah's 1995 General Plan and with reasonable consideration, among other matters, of the character of our City and the encouragement of the most appropriate signage throughout Ukiah. Signs are the most effective, yet least expensive, form of advertising [pr the small business owner. A sign is an introduction and a handshake with those passing by, identifying businesses to existing and potential customers. Signs are always "on the job" advertising 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Many merchants increase their business measurably just by adding a good sign. Conversely, m-any have gone out of business because they simply were not identified well, so not enough potential customers knew of their existence. As one sign industry professional put it, "A business without a sign is a sign of no business." An effective on-premise sign is critical component of visibility, and the sign should receive the same careful attention as these other components. Without a propedy designed and placed on-premise business sign, a commerdial site cannot function at its full economic potential. Keeping all of this in mind, the Ukiah Main Street Program supports the revised draft Sign Ordinance dated March 2005 and although we are not inherently against sandwich board signs we would strongly urge the ordinance to offer alternatives to the use of traditional A frame signs in Downtown Ukiah. The Ukiah Main Street Program would, be happy to provide design assistance to any apPlicant that requests it, in order to alleviate any burden on City staff and encourage creative signage in the downtown area. Thank you again for your time and commitment to this important document. 200 S. School St, Ukiah CA 95482 * (707) 463-6729 * (707) 462-2088 fax * mainst(C_,pacific.net www. ukiahmainstreetprogram.org City of Ukiah Staff Report to the Planning Commission PUBLIC HEARING ! WORKSHOP Revised Sign Regulations April 27, 2005 Item No. 9A Affochment tll ~'~ -// II Jill This Agenda Item is intended to be discussed in a public workshop format. Staff is not recommending that the Planning Commission formulate its recommendation to the City Council at the conclusion of the workshop, but rather provide direction to Staff and continue the public hearing to a date certain. SUMMARY: Staff has been working on revising the existing sign regulations for the past several years. The proposed draft regulations are presented in a format that strlkcs deleted language and bolds added language to the existing regulations. The basic purposes of revising the sign regulations are to contribute to the current effort of improving the appearance of the City, eliminate out-dated regulations and redundancies, and reduce legal and bureaucratic jargon. The goals of the Sign Ordinance Revision Program are to: 1. Promote and maintain local businesses for the benefit of Ukiah citizens. 2. Promote signage that identifies businesses in a fair, equitable and visually pleasing manner. 3. Attract and direct persons to various destinations. 4. Protect property values by prohibiting signs that are incompatible with the City General Plan and purposes of the regulations. 5. Reduce hazards to motorists and pedestrians. 6. Prevent excessive, confusing and incompatible signs. 7. Enhance the aesthetic and economic value of the entire community. RECOMMENDATION: 1) Conduct a public workshop/hearing; 2) provide direction to Staff; and 3) continue the matter to the May 11, 2005 meeting. BACKGROUND: In the fall of 2001, both the Planning Commission and City Council conducted public discussions regarding the 1983 regulations and possible approaches to revising them to meet the goals of the General Plan. In 2002, a Working Draft of revised regulations was prepared and circulated to interested groups and organizations for comment with an invitation to participate in the process. Interest in the project was expressed by the Mendocino Employers Council, Main Street Design Committee, and a local sign contractor. After a lengthy meeting to discuss the draft document, the Working Draft was revised in response to a number of concerns. A number of inconsistencies were rectified, vague language was removed, modifications were made to the non-conforming statutes, and other changes Were made. Planning Commission Public Workshop/Hearing Revised Sign Regulations April 27, 2005 Staff then facilitated a series of meetings with representatives from the Employers Council, Main Street Design Committee, and the Paramount Sign Company. A number of additional issues were identified by each of these groups, and alternative solutions were discussed. Ongoing concern was expressed by the Employers Council that many of the regulations were unreasonable and would be detrimental to the business community. The Table below summarizes and compares the existing and proposed sign regulations: ~ STANDARD OR REGULATION Section numbers to direct reader Total commercial sign area allowed Height of commercial freestanding sign Height of freestanding freeway oriented sign EXISTING ORDINANCE No i 1/~ square feet per 1-foot of parcel frontage on street 30 feet (or height of bldg) Taller with Variance 50 feet w/discretionary review List of Exempt Signs? Time period for special event banners? Criteria for sign review? Design standards? Banners allowed? Provisions for historic signs? Yes - 13 exempt signs 30 days No No Temporary only No REVISED DRAFT ORDINANCE Yes 1 square feet per i-foot of parcel frontage on street 20 feet (or height of bldg) Taller with Use Permit 30 feet 50 feet w/discretionary review Yes - 26 exempt signs 30 days 60 days for schools Yes Yes Temporary only - Community themed pennants/banners can be permanent with Zoning Administrator approval Yes 5-3 Nonconforming sign regulations? Planning Commission discretion? Abandoned sign regulations? Tool for seeking relief from requirements "Creative" Sign Permits? Licensed sign contractor required to install signs? Are murals allowed? Are sandwich board (A- frame) signs allowed? Yes Yes- with discretionary permit Yes Variance No No Yes - with Planning Commission review and Yes Yes- with discretionary permit- limited to design and architectural issues Yes Use Permit (Findings more related to aesthetics) Yes Yes - with some exceptions Yes- with Planning Commission review and approval. Murals under 30 square feet are exempt approval Yes - 6 square foot maximum size and located out of right- of-way from PC review. Yes - 4 square foot maximum, cannot block pedestrian traffic, must adhere to design standards ENVIRONMENTAL REV]:EW: Once the Planning Commission completes the Workshop process and provides 'direction to Staff for the preparation of a formal draft document to present to the City Council, Staff will conduct environmental review if required by the California Environmental Quality Act. WORKSHOP PROCESS: Staff suggests that the Planning Commission review the draft regulations page by page and allow the public to participate and discuss any provisions of interest. A1TACHMENTS: :[. Draft revised sign regulations (previously distributed). velopment MINUTES CITY OF UKIAH PLANNING COMMISSION April 27, 2005 MEMBERS PRESENT Kevin Jennings, Vice-Chair James Mulheren, Chair Ken Anderson Judy Pruden Mike Whetzel OTHERS PRESENT Listed below, Respectively STAFF PRESENT Charley Stump, Planning Director Kevin Ingram, Code Compliance Coordinator Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary MEMBERS ABSENT None The regular meeting of the City of Ukiah Planning Commission was called to order by Chair Mulheren at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Ukiah Civic Center, 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, California. Roll was taken with the results listed above. 3. PLEDGE OF ALLIGENCE Planning Director Stump led the Pledge of Allegiance. 4. SITE VISIT VERIFICATION - N/A 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - N/A 6. COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS No one from the audience came forward. 7. APPEAL PROCESS - N/A 8. VERIFICATION OF NOTICE City Code Amendment- Revised Sign Regulations was legally noticed in accordance with the provisions of the Ukiah Municipal Code. PUBLIC HEARING 9A. City Code Amendment - Revised Sign Regulations: WORKSHOP DISCUSSION FOR DIRECTION - NO ACTION ON DRAFT ORDINANCE. Proposed amendments to the Ukiah City code to revise the existing sign regUlations. Planning Director Stump reported staff and other interested persons have worked on the revisions to the existing Sign Ordinance for approximately four years. The Planning Commission reviewed the existing Sign Ordinance beginning in 2001, to address possible regulation vagueness, ambiguities, and/or language inconsistencies. The City Council supported the Planning Commission's recommendation to revise the Ordinance. Throughout the process, the Planning Commission and City Council have reviewed the proposed modifications for further comments, input, and recommendations/direction. Also, staff has met with the Employers' Council and representatives from the Chamber of Commerce to get MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Page 1 April 27, 2005 their input. Sign contractors, local architects and associated organizations have been notified and encouraged to provide input. Mr. Stump addressed a summary of the Draft Ordinance as follows: Total commercial sign area allowed The existing ordinance allows a maximum of one and one-half square feet per one- foot of parcel frontage on the street. The revised draft ordinance would allow a maximum of one square feet per one-foot of linear frontage on the street. The intent is to reduce the total square footage of a sign. The Employers' Council is opposed to this revision. Height of commercial freestandinq si.qn The existing ordinance allows a maximum of 30 feet (or height of building) or taller with approval of a variance. The revised draft ordinance allows a maximum of 20 feet (or height of building) or taller with approval of a Use Permit. The Employers' Council expressed concern regarding the proposed height reduction in this regard. Height of freestandinq freeway oriented sign The existing ordinance allows a maximum of 50 feet in height with discretionary review. The revised ordinance allows a maximum of 30 feet in height and discretionary review for heights exceeding 50 feet. The Employers' Council is opposed to the proposed modification. List of exempt si.qns The existing ordinance provides for 13 exempt signs. The revised ordinance provides for 26 exempt signs. Time period for special event banners The existing ordinance allows banner signs to be displayed for 30 days. The revised ordinance allows banner signs to be displayed for 30 and 60 days for schools. Criteria for siqn review The existing ordinance provides no criteria for sign review. requires criteria for sign review. The revised ordinance Design standards The existing ordinance requires no particular applicable design standard. revised draft ordinance requires that design standards be applied. The Banners allows The existing ordinance allows banners on a temporary basis. The revised ordinance allows banners on a temporary basis. However, community themed pennants/banners can be permanent with Zoning Administrator approval. Mr. Stump stated themed pennants/banners add at nice touch to the community. However, banners often signify a temporary situation, such as the advertisement of a sale where the length of time they can be displayed should be limited. Even though MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Page 2 April 27, 2005 banners are considered to be signs, they are not as expensive so the visual quality between a sign and a banner do not really compare. Provisions for historic signs There are no provisions for historic signs. The revised ordinance allows provisions for historic signs without having to go through the discretionary review process. Chair Mulheren cited the old "Frosty" sign as an example of a sign that was not removed when the building was demolished because it has historical value/significance. Nonconforminq sign regulations Both the existing and revised ordinance must comply with the regulations for nonconforming signs. The intent of this provision is to require older signs having historical significance and/or the renovation thereof conform to the current regulations. Planninq Commission discretion The existing ordinance requires discretionary review for new signs. However, the revised ordinance requires discretionary for new signs that is limited to design and architectural issues. Abandoned siqn regulations The existing ordinance and the revised ordinance require regulations for abandoned signs. Tool for seekinq relief from requirements The existing ordinance requires a variance for seeking relief from the requirements. The revised ordinance requires a Use Permit for seeking relief from the requirement where the findings should be related to aesthetics. "Creative" Siqn Permits The existing ordinance does not recognize "creative" sign permits, while the revised ordinance would. The intent is to give consideration to "creative" signs that meet the design standard criteria, but do not fully comply with the ordinance without having to go through the discretionary review process at the Planning Commissioner and/or City Council level. Licensed siqn contractor required to install siqn The existing ordinance does not require a licensed contractor install a sign. The revised ordinance does require a licensed contractor to install a sign with some exceptions. The Employers' Council questioned the validity of the proposed revision, and stated the argument is that a licensed contractor is not necessary since all signs must comply with the Uniform Building Code in order to be legal conforming. Are murals allowed The existing ordinance allows for murals with Planning Commission review and approval. The revised ordinance allows for murals with Planning Commission review MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Page 3 April 27, 2005 and approval. Murals under 30 square feet are exempt from Planning Commission review. The Employers' Council commented that perhaps larger mural should be exempt because murals under 30 square feet are small. No amount of square footage was recommended in this regard. Mr. Stump questioned whether "murals" should go through the discretionary review process at all. Are sandwich board (A-frame) signs allowed The existing ordinance requires a six square foot maximum size and must be located out of the public right-of-way, provided an Encroachment Permit is obtained. The revised ordinance requires a four square foot maximum that cannot block pedestrian traffic and must adhere to design standards. Staff recommends that sandwich board signs be architecturally pleasing. The Employers' Council questioned whether the proposed four square foot maximum is too small, especially for persons to see when driving in a car and possibly should be pedestrian-oriented. The written portion of the revised ordinance contains 11 articles, an introduction, as well as examples of compliant and non-compliant signs. Mr. Stump stated sign ordinances are typically controversial, because of the potential for violation of freedom of speech. The ordinance can regulate time, place, and manner, but not content unless it is in poor taste. Chair Mulheren commented the existing Bank of America sign is above 20-feet, and, in his opinion, too high to be effectively seen when driving. The Employers' Council should not likely complain about sign heights over 20-feet because they cannot be seen when driving. Most new signs are Iow enough to be readily seen while driving or on foot. Mr. Stump has noticed that new developments desire monument signs that are easily seen, such as those implemented for Applebees, the Hampton Inn, Les Schwab, and other new developments in the AlP. Chair Mulheren further commented if the maximum square footage for a sign is 500 square feet and new projects are currently not asking for this much square footage, why would the regulations allow for this maximum. Mr. Stump stated new projects may desire this amount of square footage in the future. Chair Mulheren agreed with the Employers' Council that having to hire a sign contractor is not necessary when all signs must comply with the Uniform Building Code standards. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED: 7:02 p.m. No public member came forward to address the revised regulations. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Page 4 April 27, 2005 Mr. Stump indicated that Code Compliance Coordinator Ingram has prepared sign brochures for easy of understanding, as opposed to handing a project applicant a copy of the Sign Ordinance. Chair Mulheren referred to page 4, regarding the revised ordinance concerning the use of pennants, and stated such signage should be implemented for a limited length of time due to the potential for deterioration. Mr. Stump acknowledged the aforementioned comment, and stated such signs could be permanent provided they are properly maintained. It was the consensus of the Commissioners to discuss various regulation issues, provide comments and input, rather than reviewing the document line-by-line. Commissioner Pruden made the following comments concerning the revised ordinance: Page 3, regarding the issuance of permits by the City Building Inspector, and expressed concern regarding the matter of "substantial compliance." This issue pertains to projects approved by the Planning Commission that once developed were close to what was approved, but note quite. She questioned how the concept of "substantial conformance" applies to signs that comply with most of the Ordinance standards, but not fully. Mr. Stump stated the issue of "substantial conformance," comes up with projects where the final development product is a little bit different than what was approved. He addressed how the concept of "substantial conformance" applies to sign projects having been through the discretionary review process but do not necessarily conform to what was approved. Signs that do no conform to the Ordinance would require further discretionary review. However, for those sign projects that meet the Ordinance standards, but the design, color scheme, etc., is not exactly consistent with what was approved, such projects should not have to go through another discretionary review. Mr. Stump stated most of the signs applications follow precise design standards as required by a corporation, so unless the sign is designed by a sign company for a particular business where staff would likely pay closer attention to whether the ordinance standards are appropriately met, the matter of whether the sign meets the ordinance criteria is not really a problem. He would review whether additional language is necessary for those signs when constructed were not the same in color or in some other small design aspect to what was approved by the Planning Commission, and establish the criteria such signs would require further discretionary review. Page 6, Signs Exempted from Permit Requirements, Item R, does not address dimensions. Mr. Stump will review whether this section should include dimensions for size, as well as determine the amount of square footage. Commissioner Pruden recommended these permanent signs be no larger than 32 square feet, possibly 16 square feet, as most of these signs are homemade. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Page 5 April 27, 2005 Page 7, Signs Exempted from Permit Requirements, Item W, and recommended referencing or cross-referencing Section 3225 with Section 3229(G), requiring that sandwich board signs remain on on-site. Main Street favors the use of freestanding signs in the Downtown. However, if sandwich board (A-frame) signs are allowed, such signs' be consistent with one another and possibly smaller in size in the Downtown area. Chair Mulheren recommended that sandwich board signs be two by three feet, for a maximum square footage of six feet. Commissioner Pruden acknowledged this dimension, and recommended the sign be no more than five square feet. Mr. Stump stated the Employers' Council recommended sandwich board signs remain at six square feet. He will review whether sandwich board sign dimensions should be different in the Downtown area as opposed to other areas. Page 8, General Sign Provisions, Item G, an inconsistency may exist with the standards relative to governmental, educational, civic or religious special event signs on public property in conjunction with non-commercial signs on private property addressed on page 5, Item C, relative to time posted and location. Mr. Stump acknowledged the distinction, and stated it is not difficult to determine whether the property is private or public. He will review these sections, as well as an acceptable total square footage. An option would be for staff to photograph murals in the community and bring them back to the Commission for discussion/comments and further direction. He stated the murals should likely be inventoried from a historical perspective. Page 8, General Sign Provisions, Item E, there are homes in the community that have murals, and they should be exempt at 30 square feet where any mural larger than this should go through discretionary review. Content should be reviewed for commercial murals, even though a billboard acting as sign for a commercial establishment may be acceptable. Murals are subjective, because what may interesting to persons representing currently or historical aspects may not be acceptable/popular in the future. Commissioner Pruden commented an effective approach to allowing for the preservation of murals is to "freeze them in time" or let them "evolve." She noted, as murals begin to fade and deteriorate, there are signs on top of signs where new signs are starting to evolve. It may be interesting to see how these signs evolve through time and perhaps "freeze them in time" once the bottom layer is reached. She cited certain businesses that have murals painted to enhance a business theme and/or represent the name of the business. She further inquired at what point on a mural does one start measuring for square footage because a mural may have more than one picture/image. Page 9, Prohibited Signs, Item C, how does the Ordinance address poster displays in vehicles that advertise an event? MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Page 6 April 27, 2005 Mr. Stump stated this is a community theme and would likely be regulated in the same manner as banners. He stated consideration should be given about the advertising of community theme and/or special events and that they should not be prohibited or discouraged. He recommended Item C read, "Any sign other than community theme events affixed to any vehicle or trailer on a public right of way or public property unless the vehicle or trailer is intended to be used in it official capacity and not for the sole purpose of attracting people to a place of business." Commissioner Pruden recommended incorporating an exempt section for very small poster signs in vehicles etc., as a consideration. For example, she displays the poster sign advertising the annual City Pumpkinfest in her vehicle. Mr. Stump stated staff is trying to distinguish between signs/posters that advertise community events with other types of advertisement and displays such as pennants and banners that also advertise community themed events. Commissioner Pruden requested clarification that local, state, and federal law regulates political/election signs, since the Ordinance does not specifically address this particular issue. She inquired whether the matter of political signs should be included in the Sign Ordinance. Commissioner Anderson referenced page 5, Section 3224, Item C, as possibly addressing political signs. Chair Mulheren stated it appears political sign matters were not addressed as such to provide for a "general overtone." Mr. Stump noted the City Attorney eliminated the term "political campaign" in Section 3224 to read, "One temporary non-commercial sign on private property .... ,! · · Commissioner Whetzel stated political campaign signs can be viewed as temporary non-commercial signs. Mr. Stump concurred that this is the intent regarding political campaign signs. Section 3224, Item C, is the portion of the document that addresses political campaign, which has been modified by the City Attorney, 'based upon case law. Political campaign signage is regulated, but generally addressed as "temporary non- commercial" rather than the existing "political campaign" signage. He noted the City Attorney also changed the timeframes in this section. Commissioner Whetzel stated Section 3224 likely coincides with the State regulation concerning political campaign signs. Commissioner Pruden recommended staff review the matter of displaying political campaign signage in vehicles. Mr. Stump concurred the aforementioned matter should likely be addressed in the community theme, poster, etc., section. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Page 7 April 27, 2005 Commissioner Pruden recommended staff review the matter of people purchasing sign space on community buses/taxi cabs for advertisement purposes. Page 9, Prohibited Signs, Section 3226, Item E, and stated the size of the flags other than those of any State or seasonal holiday, family crest, or similar flag are not specified in the Ordinance, even though they are prohibited. Also, flagpole height is not addressed. Commissioner Pruden stated the issue of flags as signage should be reviewed because they are a form of advertisement and do draw attention. Mr. Stump reiterated that any State, seasonal holiday, family crest, or similar flag are acceptable flags that can be displayed where the size does not have to be regulated. However, the flying of a corporate flag may warrant discussion. He will review Item C. Chair Mulheren inquired whether the regulations address the displaying the corporate flag, and whether there is relief for applicants desiring to do so. Mr. Stump replied the regulations state that discretionary review is necessary when seeking relief from the sign ordinance. Page 10, Section 3227, Permitted Sign Area, Encroachment, Height, Number, Illumination Movement, Item Al, for Commercial and Industrial Zones, states, "One square foot of sign area for every ground level linear foot of parcel frontage" and whether a commercial building containing 50 linear feet can have 50 square feet of signage. Mr. Stump stated the current ordinance allows for one and one half of square foot of sign area for every ground level linear foot of parcel frontage, where the revised ordinance would require one square foot. Item A3, is revised to state, "In no case shall the total square footage of signs on a building frontage exceed the number of linear feet in the frontage or 300 square feet, whichever is the lesser figure, unless approved by the Planning Commission, in which case the maximum total is 500 square feet." He stated a large 800-square foot wide parcel with appropriate linear frontage, cannot have such a sign because of the requirements in "A3", which places a cap on the maximum allowed. However, the matter of a 50-foot wide parcel having a 50-square foot sign as potentially being too large could be a topic for discussion. Commissioner Pruden added a small business could block out a window with a large sign. Some of the lots in the Downtown are narrow and rather small, so this regulation allows for quite a bit of signage for a small frontage. Commissioner Whetzel stated some signs are painted on windows. Commissioner Pruden stated the intent is to encourage creativity relevant to signage. However, in her opinion, one square foot of sign area for every ground level linear foot of parcel frontage could allow for a large sign on street frontage that may not have the creativity desired for such signage. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Page 8 April 27, 2005 Mr. Stump stated having smaller signs and directional signs or an accumulation of non-overbearing signs on commercial property would be better than one large imposing sign. Commissioner Whetzel recommended adding language that states the required. maximum square footage allowed for one sign on parcel frontage. Page 10, Prohibited Signs, Item N, states, "Corner properties signs from ground level to eight feet in height shall be prohibited in the area formed by measuring the distance of 30 'feet from the point of intersection of the two streets along the property lines and then connecting these two points to form a triangle." Commissioner Pruden questioned this section, and requested clarification that no monument or ground signs are allowed on corner properties due to visibility restrictions. Mr. Stump replied, "yes." Commissioner Pruden inquired whether this regulation applies to signs on the building. Mr. Stump stated if the building exists, the vision is already blocked. Page 10, Prohibited Signs, Item O, Billboards along Highway 101, should likely have more wording for clarification purposes. Mr. Stump recognized that the item O represents a broad/general statement. However, billboard signs are prohibited in the draft Ordinance. Commissioner Pruden pointed out that the informational signage and/or logo board systems along freeways is a very effective with advising motorists of food, rest areas, and/or other conveniences for travelers, as opposed to billboards. It is likely that billboard signage will become archaic. Also, most people plan ahead and know before they begin traveling where they are going. The Ukiah General Plan states that signage should not be implemented that obstructs the view of the Valley. Mr. Stump understands that according to current case law, communities can ban and/or further regulate the implementation of new billboards. However, there is usually a process for amortizing the removal of existing billboards. Chair Mulheren stated billboards are typically implemented in the unincorporated areas of the County as opposed to in the City limits. Commissioner Pruden stated~the "Purpose and Intent" language concerning the 101 Corridor addresses the matter of billboards. No community desires unsightly billboards. Page 10, General Sign Regulations, Section 3227, Permitted Sign Area, Encroachment, Height, Number, Illumination Movement, Item 5a, states, "Parcels under one ownership which contain four or more businesses may erect a freestanding sign in addition to other permitted signs which constitutes the single MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Page 9 April 27, 2005 freestanding sign permitted in subsection A(1)." Subsection A(1)is addressed above. She questioned what constitutes four or more businesses other than a "strip mall", "a shopping center", or a "two-story business building having multiple offices." She recommended moving Item 5a to Item 10 in this same subsection to add continuity to a section that addresses shopping centers. Commissioner Pruden stated Item 5c has been modified considerably, and agreed that the height should be implemented Iow enough for people to see. Item 5 b,c, and d should remain in the same subsection. Mr. Stump stated the language, "parcel under one ownership which contain four more business" represents an existing provision of the UMC. He cited Plaza del Sol, as an example of parcels under one ownership, which contain four or more businesses. He supported Commissioner Pruden's recommendation. Page, 12, General Sign Provisions, Item 13, apply the wording, shopping centers, office complexes, and mixed-use development complex to item 5a/10 for consistency purposes. Item 13 contains new language about sign programs in shopping centers, etc., and can remain in the same subsection. Item 13 of the ordinance requires shopping centers to have a sign program and since most shopping centers have their own program, would it be necessary for the shopping centers to have their sign programs reviewed to ensure compliance. Mr. Stump stated the procedure concerning sign programs for shopping centers has been for the owner or property manager to show staff where the signs would be located, the number of signs, and their respective dimensions. The City does not require that a particular shopping center be required to go through discretionary review each time a new business comes to the shopping center. Item 13 states that shopping centers are subject to the Sign Program Use Permit process and if such a center/complex is situated on a corner lot and has two street frontage, two center identifications signs may be permitted through the use permit discretionary review process. Planning staff would sign off on the Sign Program for the shopping centers, provided it complies with the Sign Ordinance. Page 12, General Sign Provisions, Item 14, states, "Signs proposed in the Downtown Design District shall comply with the adopted sign design guidelines for the district." Commissioner Pruden requested clarification regarding the guidelines and whether the guidelines are considered the standard. Page 14, Section 3229, Design Standards, Design, Item C and F, pertinent to the lighting techniques for sign, and is neon lighting and other lighting systems too bright and how or should they be better regulated. Mr. Stump stated neon lighting is a subjective issue. At which point does neon lighting become a bad thing? Commissioner Whetzel commented there are neon signs that are visually pleasing. A general discussion followed regarding the problems associated with enforcing night lighting that impacts to the night sky and community. The Ordinance addresses the issue of bright lighting sources/systems and states that no lighting MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Page 10 April 27, 2005 impacts shall occur with their use. A general discussion followed regarding how to better regulate lighting impacts by using lower wattage bulbs, softer lighting systems, shield versus unshielded lighting systems in conjunction with how light can be refractive outward for a substantial distances when shielded and downcast. Night lighting techniques are sophisticated and difficult to regulate, because of the broad range of systems, as well as the fact that what may affect/impact one person may not another. Mr. Stump stated the regulations represent design standards for decision makers to use in evaluating signage and light. Page 18, Nonconforming Signs, Item E, should state "nonconforming signs erected more than 50 years ago, . ...... ," which is the recognized standard for historical preservation review. Page, 20, Relief from Requirements, Item E, pertinent to the findings for seeking relief from the Sign Ordinance regulations, and it was recommended that this section incorporate language from the City's brochure concerning the "purpose and intent" for the residential/commercial/Downtown corridors and select specific language that the findings shall reflect this language for these individual areas. Mr. Stump will review this suggestion and possible correlate a link. Mr. Stump favors continuing the discussions and formulating a final draft for review by the Planning Commission for recommended approval by the Ukiah City Council. Commissioner Pruden stated the pictures representing examples of signs be better formatted. The matter was specifically continued to the May 11, 2005 meeting. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 9:14 p.m. 10. ONGOING EDUCATION 10A. Gettinq to Smart Growth II, Chapter 1: Mix Land Uses, Smart Growth Network, IMCA, 2004 The above-referenced publication is for the Commissioners' review. 11. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT Mr. Stump reported it is too late for Commissioners to attend the Planner's Institute since registration came at the beginning of the year. However, many other very informative planning-related seminars/workshops are up coming for the Commissioners to attend. Budget appropriations are set aside for Planning Commission educational purposes. 12. PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS Chair Mulheren reported that May 12, 2005, the County Airport Land Use Commission will hear the National 9 project. He commented that several people have inquired about providing adequate City Building Inspector coverage when Mr. Tuliback is not available or on vacation. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Page 11 April 27, 2005 City of Ukiah Staff Report to the Planning Commission PUBLIC HEARING / WORKSHOP Revised Sign Regulations May 11, 2005 Affachment # ~ ~ J ~' Item No. 10A This Agenda Item is intended to be discussed in a public workshop format. Staff is not recommending that the Planning Commission formulate its recommendation to the City Council at the conclusion of the workshop, but rather provide direction to Staff and continue the public hearing to a date certain. SUMMARY-' At the April 27, 2005 meeting, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing/workshop regarding the proposed draft revisions to the City Sign regulations. At the conclusion of the discussion, the Commission continued the matter to the May 11, 2005 meeting for further public input and discussion. Staff's notes from the April 27, 2005 meeting indicated that the Commission made a number of preliminary suggestions. These notes are included as Attachment No. 1. RECOMMENDAT]~ON: 1) Conduct a second public workshop/hearing; 2) direct Staff to prepare draft recommendations to the City Council based on the Commission's direction; and 3) continue the matter to the June 8, 2005 meeting. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Staff notes from the April 27, 2005 Planning Commission public workshop/hearing. Planning Commission Public Workshop/Hearing Revised Sign Regulations May 11, 2005 The Commission recommended re-opening the public hearing to ask the applicant whe he would support Commissioner Pruden's suggestion to expand the garage to the not to the west and/or by expanding the width rather than the depth of the garage. ~nd PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED: 7:25 p.m. Mr. Pruitt desires to expand the garage to the west because only a sm~ parked adequately in the driveway without blocking the driveway, area has been fenced. The existing driveway is useless. can be the reason the Commissioner Pruden commented the front apron of the useless if expansion of the garage is allowed to the west. would be even more Mr. Pruitt stated he does not want to park a vehicle in ti driveway. He has lived in his home for 20 years and has never parked in the driveway. Chair Mulheren stated the applicant desires to makt .s garage structure large enough so his vehicles can fit inside. Commissioner Pruden replied sufficient project would not be a grant of special privile s Were not created to support that the Mr. Pruitt inquired whether he could exp the garage to the eastern property line. Commissioner Pruden does not ha/ problem with the applicant building further back on the lot. This would allow the applic sufficient space to park in front of the garage. Ms. Liston stated could be done. However, luring the site plans to extend further east on the lot ,cessary findings must be created to support this proposal. PUBLIC HEARING CLO~ 7:52 p.m. A general discussio ~wed regarding the feasibility of reconfiguring the site plans to extend the garage her east in the corner of the lot. Mr. Stump sta if the site plans were revised, the Planning Commission would be required to hear the .~r at a later date. ON A carried Varia by Commissioner Pruden, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, it was the following roll call vote of the Commissioners present to continue the Major 9/Use Permit No. 05-11 to a date uncertain to allow the applicant time to revise his ns to extend the garage structure to the eastern portion of the subject property. AYES: NOES: Commissioners Anderson and Pruden and Chair Mulheren Commissioner Whetzel 10. 10A. PUBLIC WORKSHOP City Code Amendment - Revised Sign Regulations: WORKSHOP DISCUSSIION NUMBER TWO FOR DIRECTION - NO FORMAL ACTION ON DRAFT MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Page 8 May11,2005 ORDINANCE. Proposed amendments to the Ukiah City Code to revise the existing sign regulations. Planning Director Stump addressed the discussion items from the April 27, 2005 Planning Commission meeting as follows: Page 5:3224 Is the deletion of the term "political campaign" really necessary? The City Attorney will review if the aforementioned language is appropriate and/or whether it should be deleted and addressed as "temporary non-commercial." Page 6: 3224(R) Add a maximum size (4 foot x 8 foot) for this exempt sign The Commission recommended that a maximum size be placed on "permanent signs consisting of a framed or unframed surface, freestanding or attached to a wall or fence or other structure." The existing ordinance indicates no size. Page 7: 3224(W) Do not exempt A-Frame signs in the downtown from review. Consider disallowing them, but allowing decorative small (5sq. ft.) freestanding signs. The Planning Commission. will further discuss the topic of A-Frame signs in the downtown, as well as Citywide. Commissioner Pruden advised that the Main Street Program's design committee is not supportive of allowing A-Frame signs in the Downtown. The Main Street Program Board of Directors further discussed this issue, and no recommendation has been made in this regard. Page 8: 3225(E) Exempt murals - 30 sq. ft. too small? Planning staff photographed many of the existing murals in the City, and a demonstration will be made in this regard at the next Ordinance discussion. Page 8: 3225(G) Is this provision inconsistent with 3224(C)? Commissioner Pruden commented regarding this Ordinance section, and stated the intent is to determine whether an inconsistency exists with the "standards" relative to governmental, educational, civic or religious special event signs on public property in connections with non-commercial signs on private property relevant to the time posted. Mr. Stump stated further review of this section is necessary. .Page 9: 3226(C) Are community themed posters considered banners? Are community themed posters signs? Planning staff supports the concept that community themed posters be viewed as "temporary advertisement" rather than as a sign/banner. Staff will further review this matter. ;mCommissioner Pruden stated the discussion was in relationship to signs affixed to vehicles/trailers and whether this is allowed. One approach to making a determination would be to decide whether or not themed posters are considered "as signs." MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Page 9 May11,2005 Mr. Stump suggested possibly viewing themed posters as signs and determine whether such signs should be exempt. What about the advertising on MTA buses? Mr. Stump stated such advertising would likely be acceptable. The signs affixed to Dominos Pizza delivery vehicles, for example, are acceptable, whereas signs that "swirl" or the like that distract drivers should be prohibited. Mr. Stump stated the language in this section requires further review relevant to whether signs posted on vehicles are legal. Page 9: 3226(E) Should the maximum size of flags and flagpoles be established? Mr. Stump stated since such signs are prohibited, is it necessary to require a maximum size. Alternatively, should the Ordinance include a maximum size for flags that are allowed and/or the height of flagpoles. Commissioner Pruden recommended that flagpole heights have a maximum of 15 or 16 feet and that consideration be given to the appropriate square footage for flags that are allowed. Mr. Stump stated staff will conduct a survey of the existing flagpoles in the City and make a recommendation regarding an acceptable height. Page 10: (A)(1) Should businesses on small lots be disallowed from having one big sign? Mr. Stump recommended staff review commercial properties and assess whether the associated signage is in proportional size and shape with the linear square footage of the subject property and where it works or does not work. He suggested further discussion of this matter. Pages'10, 11 and 12: Should #5 on page 10 be grouped with numbers 10 on page 11 and number 13 on page 127 Mr. Stump stated this recommendation will be incorporated into the revised Sign Ordinance. Page 12: Number 14 Clarify this requirement- Downtown Design Guidelines vs. "Sign Design Guidelines." Mr. Stump stated the terminology will be clarified and changes made where necessary. Page 14: (C) and (F) Should neon at busy intersection be disallowed? Should neon "rope-lighting" be disallowed citywide? Mr. Stump stated the concern was whether too much neon lighting would be distractive at a busy intersection. Additional consideration will be given in this regard. Page 18: (E) Take out the year 1954, and replace with "50-year." MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Page 10 May 11,2005 Mr. Stump stated this recommendation will be incorporated into the revised Sign Ordinance. Page 20 (E) Should special Use Permit findings be established for commercial, residential, and industrial signs? Commissioner Pruden stated her concern with this section is the findings that would need to be made for relief from the requirements. The section lists four requirements, and she questioned whether portions of the "purpose and intent" sections from the City's brochure for the residential/commercial/Downtown corridors be included in No. E. Therefore, findings must be made consistent with the "purpose and intent" sections. Mr. Stump acknowledged that the two sections should likely be linked. Staff will review this matter. Mr. Stump addressed a summary of the Draft Ordinance as follows: Section numbers to direct reader The revised Ordinance will include this feature. Total commercial siqn area allowed The existing ordinance allows a maximum of one and one-half square feet per one- foot of parcel frontage on the street. The revised draft ordinance would allow a maximum of one square feet per one-foot of linear frontage on the street. New commercial developments are requesting smaller signs. New signs being proposed should be in scale with the corresponding building in terms of mass, height, and area. Commissioner Pruden recommended including language to ensure the necessary standards comply with the review criteria. It should be clearly documented that mass, scale, and proportion will be reviewed in the process. Mr. Stump suggested incorporating the review criteria intent with the necessary sign standards. Height of commercial freestandinq si_qn The existing ordinance allows a maximum of 30 feet (or height of building) or taller with approval of a variance. The revised draft ordinance allows a maximum of 20 feet (or height of building) or taller with approval of a Use Permit. Commissioner Pruden recommended clarifying the language that 20 feet or lower is the maximum height for a sign regardless of the height of the building. Mr. Stump commented that signage on the building is more architecturally pleasing and likely more effective than a pole sign. Height of freestandinq freeway oriented siqn The existing ordinance allows a maximum of 50 feet in height with discretionary review. The revised ordinance allows a maximum of 30 feet in height and discretionary review for heights exceeding 50 feet. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Page 11 May11,2005 List of exempt signs The existing ordinance provides for 13 exempt signs. The revised ordinance provides for 26 exempt signs. Time period for special event banners The existing ordinance allows banner signs to be displayed for 30 days. The revised ordinance allows banner signs to be displayed for 30 and 60 days for schools. Criteria for siqn review The existing ordinance provides no criteria for sign review. requires criteria for sign review. The revised ordinance Design standards The existing ordinance requires no particular applicable design standard. revised draft ordinance requires that design standards be applied. The Banners allows The existing ordinance allows banners on a temporary basis. The revised ordinance allows banners on a temporary basis. However, community themed pennants/banners can be permanent with Zoning Administrator approval. Mr. Stump stated community themed banners often present an artistic/cultural image/aspect to or about a community as opposed to a banner that advertises a product. Such banners should be able to be displayed for more than 30 to 60 days. Commissioner Pruden stated banners often deteriorate over time and inquired whether a maintenance program is a requirement. Mr. Stump stated maintenance of the banner is a requirement in the Sign Ordinance. Provisions for historic siqns There are no provisions for historic signs. Staff favors provisions for historic signs be included in the Ordinance and therefore, the revised ordinance allows provisions for historic signs without having to go through, the discretionary review process. Nonconforming sign regulations Both the existing and revised ordinance must comply with the regulations for nonconforming signs. The intent of this provision is to require older signs having historical significance and/or the renovation thereof conform to the current regulations. Planninq Commission discretion The existing ordinance requires discretionary review for new signs. However, the revised ordinance requires discretionary review for new signs that is limited to design and architectural issues. Abandoned sign regulations The existing ordinance and the revised ordinance require regulations for abandoned signs. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Page 12 May11,2005 Tool for seeking relief from requirements The existing ordinance requires a variance for seeking relief from the requirements. The revised ordinance requires a Use Permit for seeking relief from the requirement where the findings should be related to aesthetics. "Creative" Si.qn Permits The existing ordinance does not recognize "creative" sign permits, while the revised ordinance would. The intent is to give consideration to "creative" signs that meet the design standard criteria, but do not fully comply with the ordinance without having to go through the discretionary review process at the Planning Commissioner and/or City Council level. Licensed siqn contractor required to install siqn The existing ordinance does not require a licensed contractor install a sign. The revised ordinance does require a licensed contractor to install a sign with some exceptions.. Are murals allowed The existing ordinance allows for murals with Planning Commission review and approval. The revised ordinance allows for murals with Planning Commission review and approval. Murals under 30 square feet are exempt from Planning Commission review. Mr. Stump recommended further discussion in this regard. Are sandwich board (A-frame) signs allowed The existing ordinance requires a six square foot maximum size and must be located out of the public right-of-way, provided an Encroachment Permit is obtained. The revised ordinance requires a four square foot maximum that cannot block pedestrian traffic and must adhere to design standards. Staff recommends that sandwich board signs be architecturally pleasing. Mr. Stump recommended further discussion in this regard. Commissioner Pruden inquired whether menu advertisement in the windows of restaurants is recognized as a form of signage and whether it can be regulated. Mr. Stump replied the existing ordinance prohibits such signage. Banners that cover entire windows are a violation of the UMC. Mr. Stump advised that additional information will be provided to many of the above- referenced standards/regulations for the revised Draft Sign Ordinance at the next public workshop. 11. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT Mr. Stump stated the Ukiah City Council continued the Walgreen's project to the June 1, 2005 regular meeting to allow for further design revisions. The Planning Commission will again review the proposed Marijuana Ordinance at the regular May 25, 2005 meeting. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Page 13 May 11,2005 City of Ukiah Staff Report to the Planning Commission PUBLIC HEARING ! WORKSHOP Revised Sign Regulations June 22, 2005 Item No. 9C Affachment # SUMMARY.' The Planning Commission has conducted two public hearing/workshops regarding the proposed draft revisions to the City sign regulations. At the conclusion of the second hearing on Hay 11, 2005, the Commission provided suggestions and direction to Staff concerning a number of modifications to the regulations. Staff has incorporated many of the suggested language changes, and has listed others for additional discussion. A description of these language changes and additional discussion items is provided below. RECOMMENDA'D~ON: 1) Conduct a third public workshop/hearing; 2) make final modifications to the draft regulations; and 3) formulate a formal recommendation to the City Council. DISCUSSZON: The following text describes the language changes suggested by the Commission and lists the additional discussion items. 1. Page 5: 3224(C) - :Is the deletion of the term "Political Campaigd' really necessary? The City Attorney has indicated that regulating "Political £ampaigd' signs can be construed as regulating the content or subject matter of signs, which could expose the ordinance to legal challenge. It is recommended that we not use the term "Political Campaign." 2. Page 6: 3224(R) - Add a maximum size (4' x 8') for this exempt sign Staff has added this language. 3. Page 7: 3224(W) - Do not exempt A-frame signs in the downtown from review. Consider disallowing them, but allowing decorative small (5 sq. ft.) freestanding signs. Staff recommends that the Commission discuss this issue and formulate a recommendation to the City Council. Please also see the attached correspondence received from the Ukiah Hain Street Program Design Committee. 4. Page 8: 3225(E) - Exempt murals- is 30 sq. ft. too small? Staff has increased the exempt mural sign size to 100 square feet, Planning Commission Public Workshop/Hearing Revised Sign Regulations May 11, 2005 5. Page 9: 3226(C) - Are community themed posters considered banners? Are community themed posters signs? What about the advertising signs on MTA buses? Staff has added the language "other than a public bus." 6. Page 9.' 3226(E) - Should the maximum size of flags and flag poles be established? Staff has added an eighteen (18) foot square footage maximum size for the flag and a thirty (30) foot maximum height for flag poles. 7. Page :L0: (A)(1) - Should businesses on small lots be disallowed from having one big sign? Staff recommends that this issue be discussed further and a recommendation formulated for the City Council. 8. Pages :1.0, :1.:/. and ::[2 - Should #5 on page ten be grouped with numbers 10 on page 1land number 13 on page 127 Staff has grouped these regulations pertaining to shopping center signs into Section 13 on page 12. 9. Page :L2: Number 14 - Clarify this requirement- Downtown Design Guidelines vs. "Sign Design Guidelines." Staff recommends the language be changed to: "Signs proposed in the Downtown Design District shall comply with the adopted Commercial Development Design Guidelines." 10. Page 14: (C) and (F) - Should neon at busy intersections be disallowed? Should neon "rope-lighting" be disallowed city-wide? Staff recommends additional discussion of this issue, and that a recommendation be made to the City Council. I:L. Page :L8: (E) - Take out the year 1954, and replace with "50-year." Staff has made this change. 12. Page 20 (E) - Should special Use Permit findings be established for commercial, residential, and industrial signs? The findings already reference the purpose of the sign regulations. Staff recommends additional discussion and a recommendation formulated for the City Council. ENVTRONMENTAL REVTEW: Staff has determined that the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not apply to the proposed new sign regulations because it is covered by the general rule that CEQA only applies to projects that have the potential for causing significant effects on the environment. Tn this case, Staff has determined that it can be determined with certainty that there is no possibility that the regulations may have a significant effect on the environment, and therefore they are not subject to CEQA. This determination is based on the following findings: 1. The proposed regulations would result in less signage per parcel/business and Citywide that the existing regulations currently allow. 2. The proposed regulations reduce the maximum height standard for signs. 3. The proposed regulations contain design standards and review criteria, whereas the existing regulations do not. A'R'ACHMENTS: 1. 2. June 2005 version of proposed sign regulations Correspondence received from the Ukiah IVlain Street Program Design Committee, dated May 27, 2005 Staff ' rt r d ~ ~ ~oD~~'~Development the proposed layout of the windows for the north/west and south/east sides of the second unit. The Commission recommended the windows be paired and symmetrical No change to Condition of Approval No. 15 was recommended. Condition of Approval No. 25 was modified to read, "Verification that the occupant(s) of the second dwelling unit and/or primary dwelling unit are record title owner(s) of the property shall be submitted to the Director of Planning prior to the occupancy of the second dwelling unit." It was the consensus of the Commission to add the following project conditions: Condition of Approval No. 27 The final design of the second dwelling unit shall include symmetrical window placement and the utilization of windows of similar sizes. The final design shall be submitted to the Director of Planning for review and approval prior to issuance of the building permit. Condition of Approval No. 28 The final design of the second dwelling unit shall include the removal of the laundry room window (middle window on second floor of south elevation) and the utilization of window glazing on the bathroom window (westernmost window on second floor of south elevation). The final design shall be submitted to the Director of Planning for review and approval prior to issuance of the building permit. ON A MOTION by Commissioner Pruden, seconded by Commissioner Whetzel, it was carried by an all AYE voice vote of the Commissioners present to approve Major Use Permit 05-21 with Findings1-4 and Conditions of Approval 1-26 with modification to Condition of Approval No. 25, and the addition of Conditions of Approval Nos. 27 and 28, as outlined in the staff report, and as discussed above. 5C, City Code Amendment - Revised Sign Regulations: Public Hearing / Workshop number three to discuss and consider amendments to the City sign regulations, and to formulate a recommendation to the City Council. Associate Planner Lohse referred to the text in the staff report that addresses the Commission's suggestions and direction to staff concerning a number of modifications to the proposed regulations identified on pages 1 and 2 of the staff report. The City Planning Director has recommended the Commission conduct a third public workshop/hearing, make final modifications to the draft regulations, and formulate a formal recommendation to the City Council. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED: 8:45 p.m. Commissioner Pruden addressed the Sign Ordinance Regulations as follows: Page 11, subsection 9, "Signs in commercial and industrial zones shall not flash, revolve, move or be animated in any way unless allowed by Section 3226D above." This section then refers to Section 3226D that refers to 3225. These two sections are not appropriately cross-sectioned because Section 3226D addresses prohibited signs. What is allowed if such signs are prohibited? She recommended this MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Page 15 June 22,2005 sectioned be flagged for consistency because subsection 9 cannot occur unless allowed by section 3226D, which pertains to signage that is prohibited. Mr. Lohse stated Section 3225H states that the Planning Director has the discretion to allow signs, lights, pennants, banners,, balloons, flags or other advertising deVices for 30 consecutive days to announce the opening of a new business or special event since no sign permit is required. He agreed that the subsections should be better cross-referenced. Page 10, Section 3226, Prohibited Signs, Subsection M states, "Off-premise signs shall not be permitted within the City limit except real estate signs "open house" signs ..... "However, churches also put out corner signs. She recommended adding churches to the exception clause. Page 9, Section 3226E, Prohibited Signs, states, "Flags other than those of any state or nation, seasonal holiday, family crest, or similar flag. Flags of any state or nation, seasonal holiday, family crest, or similar flags shall not exceed 18 square feet in size, and the pole shall not exceed 30 feet in height." She recommends flag poles be 15 feet in height, and stated a 30-foot high flagpole is too high in a neighborhood. Large flags make a considerable amount of noise when the materials supporting the flag hits against the flagpole while smaller flags do not make an excessive amount of noise. She recommended distinguishing between residential and institutional flags, and inquired whether there should be two height standards, thereof. Joy Beeler, Main Street Program, inquired whether the flags Rainbow Construction formerly had on their building pertained to this category. Mr. Lohse replied "no". Staff is careful in requiring any measures to prohibit the American flag from being flown due to certain freedom of expression issues. The size proposed in the regulations is an acceptable average in most communities because it represents a fair compromise between a patriotic display and the use of the flag as an advertisement. Some businesses put up the American flag as an indirect form of advertisement indicating "it's the business with the big American flag." Chair Mulheren commented since sign heights have lowered, a flagpole at 30 feet would likely not be noticed. Commissioner Pruden stated a flagpole should not exceed 30 feet, except for an institutional building. No changes were recommended regarding Section 3226E. Page 12, Subsection 14, Signs proposed in the Downtown Design District shall comply with the adopted Commercial Development Design Guidelines. Commissioner Pruden stated her intent with modifying this subsection is that the Downtown Design Guidelines should not be the same as those for other commercial development. She inquired whether the modifications effectively correspond with her original intent relevant to the first two draft regulations, since there is more flexibility allowed to encourage creativity in the Downtown. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Page 16 June 22,2005 Mr. Lohse stated he would discuss this matter with Planning Director Stump. The Planning Department is reviewing the concept of potentially creating a separate zoning district for the Downtown and the associated Signage would have to be architecturally compatible with the Downtown design standards established. The intent is to allow for greater flexibility/creativity in the more densely developed downtown areas. A brief discussion followed regarding the design standards considered for Commercial Development Design Guidelines Outside of the Downtown district in conjunction with the design guidelines established Commercial Development Design Guidelines in the Downtown relevant to creativity and flexibility. The Planning Director will be requested to further review this subsection. Page 20, Section 3237, Relief from Requirements, subsection E (3), "The proposed sign would not be detrimental to the public's health, safety; and." She recommended adding the term "welfare" to the language. Mr. Lohse stated the term "welfare" used in the context of public health, safety, and welfare represents standard language .so the term was likely omitted in error. He will request clarification from the Planning Director. The Planning Commission requested that the term "welfare" is added to this subsection. The Commission further discussed the following issues: Page 1 of the staff report, item 3, Page 7 of the regulations, Section 3224(W), "Do not exempt A-frame signs in the downtown from review. Consider disallowing them, but allowing decorative small (5 sq. ft.) freestanding signs." Joy Beeler commented some of the A-frame signs detract rather than add to the beauty of the Downtown. The intent is to encourage architecturally pleasing sandwich type signs rather than disallow their use. No additional changes are proposed. It was noted that the large menus in restaurant windows are considered as signs, and therefore, must conform to the regulations. A brief discussion followed regarding the various types of signage at McDonald's and whether such signage is allowed. Mr. Lohse stated the current sign regulations prohibit more than one sign on a commercial building so any sign off of the building would be considered as a separate sign. There are many creative signage techniques exemplified in the community that are likely prohibited that are essentially a code enforcement issue. Page 2 of the staff report, item 7, Page 10 of the regulations, Section (A)(1), "Should businesses on small lots be disallowed from having one big sign?" Commissioner Pruden stated the discussions regarding this section pertained to whether a business operating on a small lot should be allowed one large sign that would likely not be MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Page 17 June 22,2005 complementary to the subject property and adjoining lots in the area. Therefore, the question is whether the amount of square footage for every ground level linear foot of parcel. frontage should be applied to allowing for a number of smaller signs rather than one large sign. She favored the concept of allowing for a series of smaller signs, which would be more effective. The recommended language for this section reads, "One square foot of sign area for every ground level linear foot of parcel. No more than two-thirds of this allowed signage to be freestanding." Mr. Lohse recommended this section read, "One square foot of sign area for every ground level linear foot of parcel. No more than two-thirds of this allowed signage to be allowed in any single sign." Commissioner Pruden recommended the last sentence read, "No more than 50 percent of this allowed signage to be allowed in any single sign." The remainder of the square footage allowed could be applied to smaller signs in various locations on the site. Mr. L. ohse agreed it is better to split the signage up especially in the Downtown so that the signs can be seen when a person drives down the street. It was the consensus of the Commission to modify this section to read, "One square foot of sign area for every ground level linear foot of parcel frontage and no single sign shall exceed 50 percent the maximum signage." Page 2 of the staff report, item 10, Page 14 of the regulations, subsection (C) and (F), "Should neon at busy intersections be disallowed? Should neon "rope-lighting" be disallowed Citywide?" Commissioner Pruden stated neon lighting at a busy intersection can be distractive and potentially a safety issue, and she cited an example. Commissioner Whetzel stated such lighting should be reviewed case-by-case because not every street corner has a light signal. Commissioner Pruden stated her concern is that neon lighting incorporating such colors as red, yellow, or green, which are the same colors used by traffic lights, could be potentially hazardous to drivers and/or pedestrians. She recommended the use of a different color. Commissioner Whetzel stated the intent is likely to have the brightest neon signs to draw attention to a particular commercial establishment. Commissioner Jennings favored the concept of reviewing neon signage on a case-by- case basis. If such signage is not allowed and still implemented, the matter would be subject to code enforcement because of non-compliance. Commissioner Anderson stated allowing commercial establishments located at intersection to have neon signs the color of traffic signals may be a problem. Commissioner Pruden recommended that the use of neon at a busy intersection be subject to review. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING C©MMISSI©N Page 18 June 22,2005 Mr. Lohse recommended page 15 of the regulations, section 3229F, read, "Light sources including neon lights shall be concealed or shielded to prevent light spillage, glare, momentary blindness, or other annoyance, disability, or discomfort to persons within view of the light sources, and shall not be directed towards the night sky." Commissioner Pruden commented on item 12 on page 2 of the staff report relevant to page 20(E) of the regulations, and recommended using a brochure relevant to each of the various areas such as residential, Downtown, commercial, highway commercial, etc., in the community that indicate the background and purpose/intent for each of these areas. She further recommended that the Use Permit should reflect the purpose and intent of the individual areas because the Use Permit findings relevant to the sign regulations are so general. The purpose and intent of a residential area is much different than those for a commercial area. Mr. Lohse stated using such a brochure is a good idea and may benefit those persons desiring to apply for a Use Permit. ON A MOTION by Commissioner Whetzel, seconded by Commissioner Jennings, it was carried by an all AYE voice vote of the Commissioners to recommend to the Ukiah City Council approval of City Code Amendment- Revised Sign Regulations, as revised, and as outlined in the staff report, and as discussed above. 10. IOA. ONGOING EDUCATION California 2025' Takinq on the Future. Affordable Housing and Infrastructure Series, Western City Magazine, June 2005. The above-referenced publication is for the Commissioners' review. 11. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT There was no discussion of this agenda item. 12. PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS There was no discussion of this agenda item. 13. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:43 p.m. James Mu[h"~'~ec~Chair Cath~ Cwad~, Reco~r~g Secretary MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Page 19 June 22,2005 Ukiah Valley General Plan and Growth Management Program VI.2. Community Design ~, Page 14 City of Uklah/1[I, Mendocino County, California Policy CD-lO./:Ensure that new construction in established neighborhoods maintains or enhances existing neighborhood character. Implementation Measure CD-IO. 1 (a): Utilize provisions in the Land Development Code to en- sure that there are design guidelines which assist property owners in selecting materials and styles for new construction in established residential neighborhoods. [Timeframe for completion: Ongoing planning pedod ~, Measure applies to: City and County ,~ Agency/Department responsible: City Planning Department and County Department of Planning and Building] Goal CD-Il: Conserve the character and architecture of its neighborhoods. Policy CD-II./:Encourage neighborhood groups to be actively involved in the preservation of their neighborhoods. Implementation Measure CD-11.1(a): Support efforts of neighborhood groups to become interested and active in neighborhood preservation. [Timeframe for completion: Ongoing planning period ~, Measure applies to: City ~, Agency/Departmentresponsible: Planning Department] GoalCD-12: Conserve the character and architecture of Ukiah and Valley neighborhoods. Policy CD-12.1:Maintain and improve Ukiah's streets, lighting, trees, landscaping, and parks in a manner that enhances the City's beauty and historic fabric. Implementation Meas_ure CD-12.1 (a): Establish public design standards for street furniture and landscaping that enhance the streetscape and general fabric of the City. [Timeframe for completion: Ongoing planning period ~, Measure applies to: City and County ~, Agen- cy~Department responsible: City Planning Department and County Department of Planning and Building] 2.06 Signs 2.06.01 Summary of major findings Thenumber, sizes, appearance of signs is and a concern within the valley. Sign regula- tions generate significant controversy on all sides of the issue. Somewhere in the debate over sign regulations is a fair balance that meets objectives from all concerned. Design Review regulations can be used to provide a base from which fair sign regulations and appearance standards can be created to serve the community. Sign regulations should focus on creating an environment in which signs can serve marketing needs in an attractive and informative manner. The regulations should not get bogged down in the minute details -- such as the style of letters or color of the placard. Adopted by the City Council: December 6, 1995 City of Ukiah ~ Mendocino County Ukiah Valley General Plan and Growth Management Program VI.2. Community Design ~, Page 15 G 2.06.02 General Plan goals, policies, and implementing programs oal CD-13: Coordinate City and County sign regulations in the Planning Area. Policy CD-13.1:Reduce visual clutter by developing a consistent signage ordinance for the entire valley, including the freeway, which sets consistent standards. Implementation Measure CD-13.1 (a): The Land Development Code shall include sign size and siting provisions. [Timeframe for completion: Ongoing planning period 4, Measure applies to: City and County ~, Agency/Department responsible: City Planning Department and County Department of Planning and Building] Implementation Measure CD-13.1(b): Develop uniform City-County design guidelines for attractive, informative signs. [Timeframe for completion: Ongoing planning period ~, Measure applies to: City and County ~, Agency/Department responsible: City Planning Department and County Department of Planning and Building] Implementation Measure CD-13.1(c): Sign regulations shall strive to incorporate a consistent program for new signs to prevent the Valley from becoming overwhelmed by signs of disparate heights, size, and design. [Timeframe for completion: Ongoing planning period 4, Measure applies to: City and County ,~ Agency/Department responsible: City Planning Department and County Department of Planning and Building] 2.07 Special design issues 2.07.01 Summary of major findings 2.07.01(A) Sound walls As an area develops and traffic increases, noise from vehicles can become a source of annoyance and potentially a health hazard in older residential areas which were built adjoining,major street and highway corridors. A common solution is to construct "sound walls" between the residences and the road generating the noise. Technically, sound walls must be of adequate height to block the line-of-sight between the noise-generating vehicles and the noise receivers. These monolithic walls line many urban freeways. There is significant concern that a con- ventional sound wall would detract significantly from the visual quality of the Ukiah Valley. Some communities -- while surrendering to the simplicity of the sound wall as a solution -- have imposed significant design requirements to prevent the appearance of a monolithic wall. Similar policies have been added to the Ukiah General Plan. ZOT. 0 (B) Under- ground utilities A basic method of improving the design and appearance of an area, is to place overhead utilities -- electrical power, telecommunications, Adopted by the City Council: December 6. 1995 CITY OF UKIAH Attachment PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Signs WHAT IS A SIGN? A sign can be anything visible to the public which directs attention to some person, place or thing. The important thing to remember is to check for any permit requirements before ordering any signs or devices which may attract attention. This may include replacing parts of existing signs. Both the lettering and the materials or structures which support it are signs. WHY DO WE REGULATE SIGNS? The City recognizes that signage is vital to existing and proposed businesses. It is the intent and purpose of the sign regulations to protect an important aspect of the economic base of the City by preventing the destruction of our natural beauty and environment. The environment is of great value to our residents and also serves to attract non-residents to the City. Sign regulations are designed to: Preserve and enhance the appearance of the City of Ukiah and protect our investment in buildings and open space. Encourage sound signing practices for business identification and public information. Prevent and eliminate excessive and confusing sign displays. Eliminate hazards to motorists and pedestrians brought about by distracting and inappropriate sign displays. WHAT Ensure that commercial signing is used primarily as identification and not as advertising. SIGNS ARE ALLOWED WITHOUT A PERMIT? The regulations contain a list of "Exempt" signs that do not require review and approval by the City. These include such signs as, government flags on flagpoles, small signs identifying a neighborhood, historical plaques, restaurant menus adjacent to the front entrance of an eatery, small signs announcing coming performances of cultural, educational, or athletic events, and other similar small signs. WHAT TYPES OF SIGNS REQUIRE A PERMIT? Signs that are not exempt, require an Administrative Permit from the Department of Planning and Community Development. This is a Permit issued over-the-counter or within a couple of days provided the sign is consistent with all the provisions of the Sign Ordinance. Shopping centers sign programs, freeway oriented signs, off-premise signs and billboards, murals, and other similar larger sign projects require the securing of a Use Permit from the Planning Commission. In addition, certain signs, such as those with lighting, or that exceed certain heights, must also secure a Building Permit pursuant to the requirements of the Uniform Building Code. SIGN PERMIT/PROGRAM ~- When there is more than one tenant in a development or building, a Sign Permit (Program) is required. Sign Permits (Programs) are established to provide consistent and equitable signing for all tenants in a complex or development. HOW DO I GET A PERMIT? Sign Permit Application forms are available at the Department of Planning and community Development at the Ukiah Civic Center, 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah. Please remember that the application must be completely filled out and requires the signature of the current property owner. Also, pictures always help us to process your application more quickly. Staff is available to assist you and answer all your questions. Building Permit A building permit is required for most sign installations. Application forms are available in the Department of Planning and Community Development at the Ukiah Civic Center, 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah. Freestanding signs over six feet tall require engineered calculations. A plan check fee will be required for these signs. Please note that electric signs require a qualified testing lab listing. Check with the Staff for current fees. Creative Sign Permit The Sign Code allows for creative signs that do not conform to all the sign regulations. The purposes of the Creative Sign Permit are to 1) Encourage signs of unique design that exhibit a high degree of thoughtfulness, imagination, inventiveness, and spirit; and Provide a process for the application of sign regulations in ways that will allow creatively designed signs that make a positive visual contribution to the overall image of the City, while mitigating the impacts of large or unusually designed signs. SIZE OF SIGNS The maximum area of signage allowed is one square foot for each linear foot of lot frontage (not building frontage) or three hundred (300) square feet, whichever is less. The total sign area for commercial businesses may exceed the 300 square foot maximum to a maximum of 500 square feet with Use Permit approval from the Planning Commission. The total area approved for some sign programs may be less than the maximum allowed by code. This is due to the fact that the size of the sign must be in proportion to the scale of the building. PLACEMENT · Signs cannot be located on or project above any portion of the roof of a building or structure. Freestanding signs must be a minimum of ten feet from the street right-of-way. HEIGHT Freestanding signs are limited to a maximum height of twenty feet tall or the height of the building whichever is less. REUSE OF SIGNS Do NOT order signs without first obtaining a Sign Permit or finding out if your desired sign is exempt from the Permit process. All nonconforming signs must be brought into conformance anytime a new business desires to make changes to the sign. WHAT SIGNS ARE PROHIBITED? A sign which no longer applies to the property where it is located is considered an abandoned sign. Such signs shall be removed along with any supporting structure. Signs within the public right-of-way or on public property including signs placed on poles, utility boxes, sidewalks or trees. Such signs are prohibited because of the clutter, confusion, distractions, litter or damage they may cause. Moving signs including banners, balloons, inflatable objects, streamers, pennants, animated signs, and similar devices are prohibited unless approved for a thirty (30) day special event (see Staff). Off-site signs are signs which identify, advertise, or promote something located elsewhere. They are prohibited, unless approved through the Use Permit process. A-frame signs that do not meet the size, height, design, and location standards are not allowed outside buildings. Roof signs are not allowed. Signs that are obscene, create hazards, obstruct visibility or imitate official government signs, such as "stop" signs, are prohibited. DESIGN The Ukiah Sign Code requires certain design standards for signs. Please check the information counter Staff to learn about design requirements. For further information please call the Department of Planning and Community Development at (707) 463-6203. City of Ukiah SI'GN REGULATIONS RESIDENTIAL AREAS Background: Ukiah has a large inventory of residences built before World War After 1946, the community experienced a building boom which created several subdivisions that were located contiguous to the older neighborhoods. Most of Ukiah's housing stock is over 40-years old. Even with infill and redevelopment of older properties, the character of the residential areas is one of pleasing maturity with traditional architectural styles, narrow streets, mature landscaping, and a variety of densities. All of these characteristics create very traditional and harmonious residential areas. Purpose and ];ntent: The purpose of having sign regulations for residential areas is to protect property values by prohibiting signs which are incompatible to neighborhoods. The intent is to set standards and requirements for signs that will compliment the character of the residential neighborhoods. These standards take into account scale, proportions, design and compatibility. NEIGHBORHOOD CO M M E RCIAL AREAS Background: Ukiah does not have a history of the traditional mixed residential and commercial neighborhood. Ukiah developed with numerous residential neighborhoods being built within a few blocks of the central downtown core. Most residents were able to walk to work, shop, and do business. Alter World War ]:]:, there was a demand for new subdivision housing which required automobile commuting. The older larger homes were often converted to apartments or razed to make way for new commercial buildings. ]:n the 1970's, a trend began of converting stylish older homes into professional offices. addition, homes built on Dora Street, Gobbi Street, Perkins Street, and Orchard Avenue became strongly impacted by high traffic volumes, noise, and close proximity to shopping centers and medical offices. Many of these residences have been remodeled and converted to commercial land uses. Purpose and ]~ntent: The purpose of regulating signs in the neighborhood commercial areas of the community is to ensure that the commercial business and professional office signs do not adversely impact adjacent or nearby residences. The intent is to maintain the unique residential and Iow intensity commercial flavor of these neighborhoods. HIGHWAY 101 COORDOR Backqround: The completion of the Highway 101 bypass in the 1960's split the Ukiah Valley down the middle, creating a physical boundary separating the rural areas from the urban environment, l:n addition, it creates new circulation patterns in Ukiah. Perkins Street, Gobbi, Street and Talmage Road were turned into major collector Roads with on and off ramps on the new freeway. The parcels fronting on Highway 101 were turned into freeway oriented commercial land. Visitor serving land uses such as lodging facilities, gas stations, and restaurants, have developed near the on and off ramps, and along the frontage of the freeway. Purpose and ]:ntent: The purpose of regulating signs along the Highway 101 corridor is to both recognize the special character of freeway oriented signs, and maintaining the rural character of the highway. Freeway oriented businesses often have large buildings and parking lots, and distinct corporate design elements. Freeway oriented businesses usually have corporate colors, distinct architectural styles, Iogos, and signage. These national "packages" allow consumers to instantly recognize a particular company from a far distance while traveling at a high rate of speed. The intent of the standards is to preserve the rural scale and character of the community. The Ukiah Valley is a narrow, beautiful, and scenic rural route. Highway 101 is a modest freeway with four lanes, Iow traffic volumes, and no sound walls. The modesty of the freeway does not require freeway oriented businesses to need the same standards found in heavily populated urban centers. MORE INFORMATION city of Ukiah Department of Planning and Community Development 300 Sero/nary Avenue Uk/ah, C,4 9S482 ('707) 463-6203 p/ann/n9 @c/tyo£uk/ah. com UK?AH STGN ORD] NANCE REV 'S] ONS Hailing list ^,ooZiest # / Jeri Harris, Executive Director John Dickerson, Executive Director Mendocino County Employers Council 597 South Main Street Ukiah, CA 95482 Ukiah Main Street Program 200 South School Street Ukiah, CA 95482 Richard Ruff, Architect 120 A West Standley Street Ukiah, CA 95482 Ukiah Chamber of Commerce 200 South School Street Ukiah, CA 95482 Cake Ed Sign & Graphics 1460 Knob Hill Road Ukiah, CA 95482 Crawford's Signs 1128 S. State Street Ukiah, CA 95482 Northern Lights 1510 S. State Street Ukiah, CA 95482 Sanky Signs & Storage 144 Cherry Street Ukiah, CA 95482 Sharco Signs 1086 W. Stadley St. Ukiah, CA 95482 Sheldon Signs 2305 South Main St. Lakeport, CA 95453 Sheldon Signs & Lighting P.O. Box 1412 Lakeport, CA 95453 The Sign Shop 43197 Casper Little Lake Rd. Mendocino, CA 95460 Speedy Signs 2350-E N. State St. Ukiah, CA 95482 Wilds Signs 75 East St. Lakeport, CA 95453 Berry Sign & Crane Co. P.O. Box 201 Redwood Valley, CA 95470 Paramount Sign Contractors 2701 Road ! Redwood Valley, CA 95470 A Cheaper Sign 13300 East Hwy 20 Clearlake Oaks, CA 95423 Prestige Printing & Graphics 173 West Mendocino Ave Willits, CA 95490 Axt & Mitchell, Architects 135 West Gobbi Street Ukiah, CA 95482 DATE: ITEM NO. ~ ~ September 7, 2005 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: DISCUSSION AND DIRECTION REGARDING APPLICATION OF LAFCO POLICY TO ANNEXATION OF PROPERTY IN BRUSH STREET TRIANGLE SUMMARY: This item asks the City Council to decide whether city officials should appear at the September 12, 2005, meeting of the Local Agency Formation Commission ("LAFCO"), and support or oppose a LAFCO policy that would require Mendocino County to approve "development plans" for property within the Brush Street Triangle before LAFCO will accept an application to annex the property into the City. For the reasons discussed below, the staff recommends that the City Council authorize City officials to attend the meeting and oppose the policy, and advocate instead that (1) LAFCO should base its review of annexation applications on the prezoning and general plan adopted by the City and (2) the City should approve development plans for the property after it is annexed into the City. BACKGROUND John Mayfield and Jack Cox have indicated that they want to annex to the City of Ukiah approximately 39 acres of vacant land which they own in the Brush Street Triangle. In response, the Executive Director of LAFCO is asking its Board of Directors to decide at their September 12, 2005, meeting whether LAFCO should require a specific Continued on Page 2 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Authorize staff to submit written and oral testimony at the LAFCO meeting on September 12, 2005 or at subsequent meetings, to oppose the application of LAFCO policy IV.A.9 to annexations of property into the City of Ukiah. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: Instruct staff to support the policy or take no action. Citizen Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: LAFCO Staff Candace Horsley, City Manager David J. Rapport, City Attorney Charley Stump, Planning Director LAFCO Executive Director Staff Report for August 1,2005, meeting APPROVED' , --~andace' Horsley, C~y~Manager LAFCO POLICY September 1, 2005 Page 2 of 4 development plan, such as an approved tentative subdivision map or a specific plan, before it will consider an annexation application for this property. In his report to the Board, the Executive Director states that an approved development plan is required by policies adopted by LAFCO. (A copy of the report is attached as Attachment 1.) He quotes as follows from Chapter IV.A.9 those policies: Mendocino LAFCO generally requires approved development plans, such as a tentative map, specific plan, etc. when vacant territory that can be subdivided is proposed for annexation to a city or district. A key consideration in LAFCO's review of annexation requests is the timing of the action. LAFCO discourages the annexation of vacant land until it can be demonstrated that services are needed in the near future. Without approved development plans, it cannot be demonstrated that services are required. Approved development plans also provide the information necessary to evaluate a proposal. The plans show what land uses are planned, the level of services required, how services will be provided, and the conditions under which services will be extended. They also enable LAFCO to evaluate the impact of a jurisdictional change on adjacent areas. The Executive Director also notes that this policy might be argued to conflict with Government Code Section 56375(a)(3) which states, in part: A commission shall not impose any conditions that would directly regulate land use density or intensity, property development, or subdivision requirements. When the development purposes are not made known to the annexing city, the annexation shall be reviewed on the basis of the adopted plans and policies of the annexing city or county. A commission shall require, as a condition to annexation, that a city prezone the territory to be annexed or present evidence satisfactory to the commission that the existing development entitlements on the territory are vested or are already at buildout, and are consistent with the city's general plan. However, the commission shall not specify how, or in what manner, the territory shall be prezoned. The decision of the commission with regard to a proposal to annex territory to a city shall be based upon the general plan and prezoning of the city. Not mentioned in his report is LAFCO policy IV.E.1, which states: The Commission shall not impose any conditions that would: Directly regulate land use density or intensity, property development or subdivision requirements. [56375] Cause LAFCO POLICY September 1, 2005 Page 3 of 4 LAFCO to assume control over all or part of the operations of, or set policy for any agency. [56376.5(c)] CONCLUSION In my opinion, the LAFCO policy which generally requires a development plan, such as an approved tentative map or specific plan, as a condition of accepting an application to annex vacant land which can be subdivided directly conflicts with state law limits on LAFCO's authority and also significantly undermines one of the important purposes of annexation. One of the primary reasons for annexing property into a city is to vest the city with the authority to approve development plans for the property, since after annexation the city is responsible for providing services to the property. The LAFCO policy would require Mendocino County to do this before the property was annexed. As a result, the City would assume responsibility for development plans approved by the County and the County's approved plans would determine that level of services the City is required to provide. In my opinion, this is a fundamentally flawed policy. The jurisdiction that will provide services should approve specific development plans for undeveloped property, since that is the jurisdiction which will have to provide services to that development. Government Code Section 56375(a)(3) prevents LAFCO from undermining this important purpose of annexations by prohibiting LAFCO from imposing any condition that would directly regulate land use density or intensity, property development or subdivision requirements. The LAFCO policy requiring a development plan as a condition of accepting an application directly regulates property development. Section 56375(a)(3) provides added protection by requiring the city to prezone property proposed for annexation and by requiring LAFCO to review a proposed annexation based on the adopted plans and policies of the city, if the development plans are not made known by the applicant. The LAFCO policy directly conflicts with these requirements. LAFCO is not limiting its review, where development plans are not made known, to the adopted plans and policies of the city. Rather, the LAFCO policy forces the applicant to get development plans approved by the County and bases its decision in part on those County adopted plans rather than the City's general plan and prezoning of the property. Another concern expressed by the Executive Director is that absent a "development plan" LAFCO will be unable to determine if public services are available to serve the property. Staff's response to this concern is that the Environmental Impact Report that has been required by the City for the annexation will determine if public services are available and what impact the annexation will have on those services. The Executive Director devotes many pages of his report to a justification of the LAFCO policy. However, LAFCO cannot exceed its authority as established by state law. Moreover, none of the policy's asserted justifications overcome the fundamental flaws in the policy as discussed above. LAFCO POLICY September 1,2005 Page 4 of 4 Staff requests City Council approval to make these points both verbally and in writing to LAFCO for its consideration at its September 12, 2005, meeting or in any subsequent meeting. LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION of MENDOCINO COUNTY 200 SOUTH SCHOOL STREET. SUITE 2 UKIAH, CA 954.82 707.463.4470 LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION REGULAR AGENDA City of Ukiah Council Chambers 300 Seminary Ave., Ukiah Monday--August 1, 2005- 10:00 a.m. FPPC NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS IN LAFCO PROCEEDINGS All parties and participants, as well as persons at this meeting, or agents to a proceeding before this agency involving a license, permit, or other entitlement for use, or any change of organization or reorganization, are required to disclose on the record of the proceeding any contributions made within the proceeding twelve (12) months that total $360 or more by the party or participant, or his or her agent, to any officer of this agency before the commencement thereof. ADA Compliance The Commission complies with ADA requirements and will attempt to reasonably accommodate individuals with disabilities upon request. For assistance in accommodating your needs, please notify LAFCO's office five working days in advance of the meeting by calling 707 463 4470. A £ £ _rTEt~IS liRE CONSIDERED FOR ~1C TION UNL ESS 0 THER WISE NO TED 1. CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL Chairwoman Commissioners Alternate Commissioners Appointing Authority Camille Ranker Ed O'Brien Tony Orth Districts Michael Delbar Kendall Smith BOS Vice-Chairman Jim Wattenburger BOS Jere Melo Karen Oslund Mark Ashiku City Select Committee Chuck Simon Gerald Ward Public e e * PUBLIC EXPRESSION The Commission welcomes participants in the LAFCO meetings. Comments will be limited to matters under LAFCO jurisdiction that are not on the posted agenda and items that have not previously been considered by LAFCO. LAFCO limits testimony on matters not on the agenda to three minutes per person and not more than ten minutes for a particular subject. No action will be taken. APPROVAL/CORRECTION/ADOPTION OF MINUTES A. May 2, 2005 regular meeting DISCUSSION/DIRECTION REGARDING LAFCO POLICY REQUIRING APPROVED DEVELOPMENT PLANS WHEN VACANT TERRITORY THAT CAN BE SUBDIVIDED IS PROPOSED FOR ANNEXATION TO A CITY OR DISTRICT AND PROPOSED . ANNEXATION TO CITY OF UKIAH OF BRUSH STREET TRIANGLE[See LAFCO's Policy and Procedures, Chapter IV--General Policies That Apply For All Applications, Page 37, Paragraph 9 (www. mendolafco, org)] INFORMATION REGARDING SDRMA 2005-2006 PROPERTY AND LIABILITY e PACKAGE PROGRAM CERTIFICATE OF COVERAGE RESPONSE LETTER TO COUNTY OF MENDOCINO GRAND JURY REGARDING THEIR REPORT ENTITLED SEVEN FIRE DISTRICTS OF RURAL MENDOCINO COUNTY 7. DISCUSSION/DIRECTION/APPROVAL OF SUBCOMMITTEE ASSIGNMENST FOR SERVICE REVIEWS FOR JURISDICTIONS LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION o~ MENDOCINO COUNTY 200 SOUTH SCHOOL STREET. SUITE 2 UKIAH, CA 95482 707.463.4470 e 10. REPORTS A. Executive Officer · Cease and Desist letter to Russian River Flood Control and Water Conservation Improvement District (RRFC& WCID) from SWRCB, (dated January 7, 2005) · Letter from SWRCB regarding Compliance and Monitoring Plan submittal by RRCF &WCID in response to Cease ahd Desist letter from SWRCB, (dated February 25, 2005) · Letter from SWRCB to RRFC&WCID regarding Compliance and Monitoring Plan for compliance with terms of Cease and Desist Order, (date June 10, 2005) · Letter to SWRCB from RRFC&WCID in reply to June 10, 200fletter from SWRCB, (dated July 6, 2005) · Notice To All Water Users in the Ukiah Valley Area from RRFC&FCID · Order Denying Petition to Redwood Valley CWD from SWRCB, (dated February 3, 2005) · Cease and Desist Order to Redwood Valley CWD from SWRCB, undated but signed on May 19, 2005 · Letter from Redwood Valley CWD to RRFC& WCID regarding water accounting system used by RRFC&WCID, (dated June 21, 2005) · Letter from RRFC&WCID to Redwood Valley CWD in reply to Redwood Valley CWD letter of June 21, 2005 (dated July 5, 2005) · Progress of LAFCO Water Service Review for Ukiah Valley Russian River Watershed · Effect on near term proposed annexations if Water Service Review is not completed · Westport Service Review B. Commissioners · Water Service Review Subcommittee Report as appropriate CORRESPONDENCE A. Letter from Laytonville CWD regarding proceeding with an annexation application B. Letter from Hopland Cemetery District regarding need for a map of the District C. Letter from State Board of Equalization announcing the adoption of new requirements for maps to be filed with the SBE ADJOURNMENT Agenda Item 4 August 1, 2005 DISCUSSSION/DIRECTION REGARDING LAFCO POLICY REQUIRING APPROVED DEVELOPMENT PLANS WHEN VACANT TERRITORY THAT CAN BE SUBDIVIDED IS PROPOSED FOR ANNEXATION TO A CITY OR DISTRICT AND PROPOSED ANNEXATION TO CITY OF UKIAH OF THE BRUSH STREET TRIANGLE OVERVIEW With this agenda item, because of an impending annexation request, I am seeking a decision fi.om the Commission providing direction to me as to the interpretation of LAFCO's policy requiring approved development plans for vacant land before an annexation can be approved. LAFCO's stated reasons for this requirement of policy is that approved development plans demonstrate that services are required and are needcd in the near future; shows what land uses are planned; allows for an understanding of level of services and the conditions under which they will be needed (Plan For Services); and allows LAFCO to evaluate the impact of a jurisdictional change on adjacent areas and the annexing agency. The reason that I will need this interpretation fi.om the Commission is because there is a proposal to annex 39 acres to the City of Ukiah without having approved development plans such as a tentative map or a specific plan. This annexation proposal is inconsistent with parts of C-K-H and our policy requiring approved development plans and consistent or subject to interpretation to other parts of LAFCO law. I therefore believe that the Commission should make an interpretation and provide direction to me as to how I should proceed, once I receive the application. Background For the past twenty plus years, or more, there have not been any annexations to any city within Mendocino County. There have been some proposals but because of the failure to reach an agreement on tax sharing, the annexations did not occur. At present, there are three proposed annexations to two cities; approximately 75 acres of the White Property proposed for annexation to the City of Ft. Bragg; approximately 8 acres for the RCHDC annexation to the City of Ukiah; and approximately 39 acres known as the Brush Street Triangle proposed for annexation to the City of Ukiah. These proposed annexations to cities are the first since the adoption of our policies under the requirements of the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000. The White Property proposal in Ft. Bragg is undergoing an extensive planned development process with the City and when the City approves the proposal, the City will then file an application to LAFCO for annexation to the City. The RCHDC proposed development to the City of Ukiah is also undergoing a planned development process through the City and the County and when completed and approved by the City; the City will then apply to LAFCO for annexation. This is the similar process whereby LAFCO works with County Planning for proposals requiring annexation to water or sewer districts; e.g. the approved tentative map for the Nicoll subdivision proposal of a few months ago. The owners of the Brush Street Triangle properties (Jack Cox and John Mayfield) are requesting annexation to the city without completing any development plans as required by LAFCO's development policy, cited below. Approximately 10.5 acres of the proposed annexation territory is presently developed and is at buildout; approximately 28.5 acres are vacant and subject to future development. LAFCO's policy that is under discussion and question for interpretation by the Commission is taken from Chapter IV; entitled General Policies That Apply For All Applications, (Section A, Paragraph 9 on Page 37). The policy is as follows: "Mendocino LAFCO generally requires al~t~roved development plans, (tentative map, specific plan, eta) when vacant territory that can be subdivided is proposed for annexation to a city or district. A key consideration in LAFCO's review of annexation requests is the timing of the action. LAFCO discourages the annexation of vacant land until it can be demonstrated that services are needed in the near future. Without approved development plans, it cannot be demonstrated that services are required Approved development plans also provide the information necessary to evaluate a proposal. The plans show what land uses are planned, the level of services required, how services will be provided, and the conditions under which services will be extended. They also enable LAFCO to evaluate the impact of jurisdictional change on adjacent areas." (Bold and underline--my emphasis) Section 56300 requires LAFCO to have adopted Policies and Procedures and to exercise its powers consistent with those policies and procedures. The Commission has adopted both CEQA and general policies and procedures. Section 56300(a) of the Government Code states the following: "It is the intent of the Legislature that each commission, not later than January I, 2002, shall establish written policies and procedures and exercise its powers pursuant to this part in a manner consistent with those policies and procedures and that encourages and provides planned, well-ordered, efficient urban development patterns with appropriate consideration of preserving open-space and agricultural lands within those patterns. (Bold--my emphasis) LAFCO's development policy is consistent with the requirements of Section 56300(a) to encourage and provide "planned, well-ordered, efficient urban development patterns" as cited above. This particular policy also dovetails with the requirements for a plan for services as required by Section 56653, as also discussed below. Government Code Section 56653 states: "(a) Whenever a local agenCy or school district submits a resolution of application for a change of organization or reorganization pursuant to this part, the local agency shah submit with the resolution of application a plan for providing services within the affected district. (b) The plan for providing services shall include all the following information and any additional information required by the commission or the executive officer. (1) An enumeration and description of the services to be extended to the affected territory. (2) The level and range of those services. (3) An indication of when those services can feasibly be extended to the affected territory. (4) ,4n indication of any improvement or upgrading of structures, roads, sewer or water facilities, or other conditions the local agency would impose or require within the affected territory if the change of organization or reorganization is completed. (5) Information with respect to how those services will be financed. "(Bold--my emphasis) The Commission through its adopted policies has required "additional information" for a Plan For Services. For the convenience of the Commission I have attached the complete set of the adopted requirements for Plan For Services. (See Attachment # 1) As required by law and our policies, it would be difficult to provide a detailed and complete Plan For Services for vacant land, without having an understanding of the amount, type and placement of the proposed development. Thus, the policy requirement for approved development plans as cited above. Section 56375 states: "The commission shall have all of the following powers and duties subject to any limitation upon its jurisdiction set forth in this part. (a) To review and approve or disapprove with or without amendment, wholly, partially, or conditionally, proposals for changes of organization or reorganization, consistent with written policies, procedures and guidelines adopted by the commission." (Bold--my emphasis) This phrase, "consistent with written policies, procedures and guidelines adopted by the commission", supports and provides consistency with the development policy in question, and other statements and aspects of the law cited above. However, Section 56375(a)(3) states: "A commission shah not impose any conditions that would directly regulate land use density or intensity, property development, or subdivision requirements. When the development purposes are not made known to the annexing city, the annexation shah be reviewed on the basis of the adopted plans and policies of the annexing city or county. A commission shah require, as a condition to annexation, that a city prezone the territory to be annexed or present evidence satisfactory to the commission that existing development entitlements on the territory are vested and already at buildout, and are consistent with the city's general plan. However, the commission shall not specify how or in what manner the territory shall be prezoned The decision of the commission with regard to a proposal to annex territory to a city shah be based upon the general plan and the prezoning of the city. "(Bold and underline--my emphasis) I have attached a map and a "Future Development Scenario Table" of the proposed development that was obtained from the City of Ukiah Planning Department that indicates the prezoning that the City is considering. Although the "Scenario Table" indicates C-l, multi-family residential (R-3) and single family residential (R-l) for various parcels, my understanding fi.om the City is that, at the request of the landowners, they are considering C-1 for all of the area as this will allow retail, multi-family and single family development for any of the parcels depending on future decisions of the owners. It is my understanding that C-1 zoning would be consistent with the General Plan of the City. (See Attachments No. 2 & 3) To the degree that a city has "adopted plans and policies" to require approved development plans before annexation, Section 56375(a)(3) and the Commission's policy on development plans are consistent and compatible. However, the statements highlighted in the above citation fi.om 56375(a)(3) can be interpreted as being inconsistent and incompatible to LAFCO's development policy, if the City has not adopted plans and policies requiring approved development plans. The City of Ukiah does not have "adopted plans and policies" specific to annexation either in its General Plan or other ordinances or policies. The City's General Plan does discuss the need for Master Plan Areas: ~/laster Plan Areas are a new classification in the Ukiah Valley. Master Plan Areas are intended to cover lands proposed for "specific plans," "area plans, "or as "planned unit developments. A Specific Plan is called out in California law as an adopted plan that provides precise development standards and policies for an area of land State law specifies what must be included in a Specific Plan. Sometimes a private developer, the City, or County would prefer to have a less precise development proposal to be considered for adoption. The role of the Master Plan is to permit an area within the Ukiah Valley to be designated for more precise, site specific studies prior to approving subdivisions or other uses. This is to be called a "Master Plan Area. "A Master Plan area permits the following: Amending the General Plan to show an area of one or more ownerships as a location for which a separate planning document has been prepared. · Preparing an area plan for the Master Plan Area that will identify land use and other development and environmental policies applicable to the defined area. · Master Plans need not to address all elements of the General Plan, but only Iht,se elements and policies applicable to the area. However, General Plan policies not addressed in the Master Plan still apply to the Master Plan area. · Master Plans must be consistent with the General Plan. · The Master Plan Area land use classification is to be applied to the parcels contained within a Master Plan or a Specific Plan at the time of adoption by the City or County. If the General Plan is undergoing an update or revision, and a Master Plan or Specific Plan is being prepared, the revised or updated General Plan may show the subject property as a Master Plan Area. "(Taken fi.om the Land Use element of the City's General Plan, page 8--See Attachment//4) The City's General Plan Policy LU-6.1 states: "Allow the use of Master Plan Areas to provide for mixed use development, transit oriented development, and other precise- planning needs for larger ownerships or groups of ownership." Implementation Measure LU-6. l (a) states: "Master Plan Areas may be initiated through General Plan Amendments by property owners, the City, or the County as a means of meeting comprehensive planning needs or special or unique circumstances that are best served through a planning document that focuses on a particular area." (Bold--my emphasis) At the time of the City's General Plan development, the Brush Street Triangle area was not specifically designated as a Master Plan Area, but it seems to meet all of criteria for such a designation. This is reinforced by an EIR conducted for the Orr Creek Bridge and Orchard Ave. extension to Brush Street, certified by the City in January of 2005. The project study area for the EIR included the Brush Street Triangle properties. (See Attachment # 5--Map of Study Area as found in the EIR) On January 5, 2005 the City Council for the City of Ukiah via Resolution No. 2005-26 certified this EIR. Under the Land Use Element of the EIR, one of the mitigation requirements of the EIR was that a Specific Plan for the Study Area be developed prior to allowing new development. When the City Council approved the EIR via resolution they changed the mitigation requirement ora specific plan to one of requiring a comprehensive plan as follows: (Section 21, page 17) "Growth Inducing Impacts: The EIR concludes that the future development of the Study Area could be inconsistent with the Ukiah Valley Area Plan because the Plan calls for all future development to include open space, a stream access plan, have an attractive Highway 101 viewshed, etc. To mitigate this potentially significant adverse land use and aesthetic impact, the EIR suggests that a Specific Plan be prepared for the Study Area prior to allowing new development. On danuary 15, 2005 the City Council adopted alternative language for this mitigation; Prior to approving any new development in the Study Area, the County or City (depending on which entity has jurisdiction) shall require the development and approval of a comprehensive planning document for the entire area. Later on the same mitigation measure, the Council added: The comprehensive planning document should be prepared for and adopted by the County (or the City if the area is annexed to the City) prior to approving new development." While the statements cited above from the Resolution clearly states "prior to new development" and not prior to annexation; it is also clear that it is consistent and compatible with LAFCO's policy requirement and provides direction not otherwise available fi'om the city. Thus the question becomes one of interpretation of apparently conflicting or unclear laws and policies. Without "adopted plans or policies" for annexation by the City, it can be interpreted that Section 56375(a)(3) does not apply and LAFCO's adopted policy wouM be the prevailing requirement. It can also be interpreted that the lack of "adopted plans and policies" by the City, allows annexation without development plans. A decision on interpretation of this circumstance is before the Commission today. When it comes to making interpretations and decisions based on policy or the law, staff has limitations that are not placed on the Commission. The Commission has been given greater independence and has far greater leeway under Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg in making its decisions than the Executive Officer. For example, the Commission is not required to approve any application for a change of organization (annexation). Approving an annexation is a quasi-legislative decision on the part of the Commission. It is a permissive or discretionary act on the part of the Commission, not a mandated requirement. Because approval of an annexation is a quasi-legislative, permissive act, the Commission has a level of independent discretion as to its decisions and opinions of the applicable processes, policies and the law, not given to staff. Discretionary approval of an application allows the Commission to condition its approval, if thought appropriate. Through the Commission's adopted policies, development plans have been considered appropriate as a condition of application, thus arguably as a condition of approval. In relation to independent decision-making, Government Code Section 56325.1, in fact, requires that the Commission exercise independent judgment in its decisions. And Section 56107 underscores this independence by authorizing the commission to liberally construe C-K-H to accomplish its purposes. Section 56325. l states: "While serving on the commission, all commission members shall exercise their independent judgment on behalf of the interests of residents, property owners, and the public as a whole in £urtherin~ the tmrt~oses of this division. Any member appointed on behalf of local government shall represent the interests of the public as a whole and not solely the interests of the appointing authority. This section does not require the abstention of any member on any matter, nor does it create a right of action of any person. "(Bold and underline--my emphasis) The purpose of the Commission and thus the purpose of "this division" is described in Section 56301 as follows: "Among the purposes of a commission are discouraging urban sprawl, preserving open space and prime agricultural lands, efficiently providing government services and encouraging the orderly formation and development of local agencies based on local conditions and circumstances. "The phrase "based on local conditions and circumstances" found in Section 56301 is clearly, once again, giving the commission the ability to make independent judgments as it considers appropriate. Additionally, Section 56001 underscores and reinforces 56301. It states: "The Legislature finds and declares that it is the policy of the state to encourage orderly growth and development which are essential to the social, fiscal, and economic well-being of the state. "LAFCO's policy requiring approved development plans is a means ofobtainh~g "orderly growth and development". (Bold--my emphasis) Finally, Section 56107 states: "(a) This division shah be liberally construed to effectuate its purposes. No change of organization or reorganization ordered under this division and no resolution adopted by the commission making determinations upon a proposal shall be invalidated because of any defect, error, irregularity, or omission in any act, determination, or procedure which does not adversely and substantially affect the rights of any person, city, county or any agency of the state. (b) AH determinations made by the commission under and pursuant to this division shall be final and conclusive in the absence of fraud or prejudicial abuse of discretion. (c) In any action or proceeding to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul a determination by a commission on grounds of noncompliance with this division shah extend only as to whether there was fraud or a prejudicial abuse of discretions. Prejudicial abuse of discretion is established if the court finds that the determination or decision is not supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record." (Bold--my emphasis) Discussion LAFCO law is rife with apparent conflicts. This is one of them. The Commission is required to sort through all of the issues and apparent conflicts to render a judgment. And, as long as the record indicates that the Commission examined the issues with some thoroughness and the record provides information and evidence to support its decision, even in light of conflicting information or conflicting aspects of the law, historically, throughout the State, the courts have not been inclined to dispute the decisions of the commissions. LAFCO's policy requiring development plans for purposes of understanding the impact of an annexation proposal on services, adjacent areas or the annexing agency is supported by many aspects of the law that require planned, well-ordered development and efficient extension of services; so, it is not in conflict with the overall intent and purpose of the requirements of C-K-H. Although I believe that the weight of the information in the record, consisting of the Policies and Procedures of the Commission, previous decisions of the Commission, the lack of adopted annexation plans and policies by the City, elements of the City's General Plan, the City's Resolution certifying the EIR for the Orr Creek Bridge and Orchard Ave. extension and the information provided in this report allow support of enforcement of LAFCO's policy requiring development plans, I a._~_~_.~ ~ believe that it is possible t~o have a different inte~ It is possible that an interpretation of 56375(a)(3) could be made so as to not enforce LAFCO's policy. It is certainly open to some interpretation as to LAFCO's policy being in conflict with Section 56375(a)(3) and could be interpreted that way b_ut the record.. ~ seems to_point the other____._.~y. However, it is up to the Commission's interpretation as to which aspect of policy and law that Commission wishes to emphasize. Based on stated concerns of community neighborhood groups, individuals and previous experience with the RCHDC application, the Orchard Street Bridge and other issues affecting the neighborhood surrounding the Brush Street Triangle, it is clear there will be many neighborhood concerns as to the level and type of development proposed for the Brush Street Triangle. People within this neighborhood have historically raised concerns as to the issues of excessive traffic, parking congestion, noise, lack of parks and playgrounds, and other similar issues. It is apparent that any development at this location will have some impact on the existing neighborhood and, depending on the future level of development that is approved, can potentially have significant adverse impact on the existing neighborhood. It can be argued that without a specific planning instrument that details the expected level of development and thus, future activity at and from that site, it will be difficult for the people in the neighborhood to understand, evaluate and provide input to the annexation review process. It can also be argued that without having a development proposal, it would be difficult to conduct a complete and thorough environmental review. I am not sure how the City plans to perform a CEQA review of the annexation without a development proposal, especially in light of other proposed development in the area, and I have no present understanding of what level of environmental review would be required. I would assume that an EIR would be considered, if not required. LAFCO would be a Responsible Agency in any environmental review. As required by law, LAFCO has adopted CEQA policies and procedures for the purpose of environmental review. Attached, for your review, is LAFCO's Policy Regarding Significant Adverse Environmental Impacts (Pages 9, 10 & 11 ofLAFCO's CEQA Policy and Procedures-- See Attachment 6). It wouM be up to LAFCO to determine if any environmental review is sufficient for its policies. There is a proposed 700-unit housing development (known as the "Hop-Kiln" development) and an unknown level of commercial development to occur on the old Masonite property to the north of the Brush Street Triangle properties. This proposed development is presently undergoing a planned development process with the County and will require annexation to the Ukiah Valley Sanitation District and Millview CWD once approved by the County. A traffic circulation plan, as developed by the County for the Masonite Property developments, is proposing to extend Orchard Ave northward to Ford Road and possibly beyond for the purpose of providing traffic circulation for these developments. Ford Road is an east/west street that runs along the south side of the Raley's shopping center and underneath the freeway for access to the Masonite Property. Orchard Avenue presently terminates at Ford Street just before the Brush Street Triangle property. Extension of Orchard Ave. will potentially provide more traffic through the existing neighborhood. These proposed developments and any future development proposed for the Brush Street Triangle appear to have the potential for connective impact. Conclusion While the landowners of the Brush Street Triangle have petitioned the City for annexation,.I have not received an application for annexation from the City, yet. The City at this point is performing a preliminary evaluation and is opening a dialogue with the County for purposes of negotiating a tax share agreement. Placing this issue on record fbr a decision by the Commission, at an early stage as possible, provides value to the owners and any public interests that may have concerns. The policy under discussion is fairly straightforward in requiring development plans before vacant property is approved for annexation. At the staff level, I consider adopted policies to be my marching orders from the Commission. However, when there are potential conflicts between LAFCO's interpretation of policies and the law and the applicant/landowners' interest, desires and interpretation, it is incumbent upon staffto bring this issue to the Commission for clarification and direction. Based on a preponderance of the record, I believe that there is sufficient discretion given to the Commission in the law to choose to require development plans prior to annexation, as its policy requires. Lacking clear plans and policies from the City regarding annexation, it is my belief that the Commission has been given the discretion to require development plans according to its policy, provided there is no prejudicial abuse of discretion and the decision is supported by substantial evidence in the record. Discretion is given to the Commission, not to staff, thus my request for direction. If the Commission decides to uphoM its policy requiring approved development plans, it is possible that the landowners may choose to challenge this decision in court. If the Commission decides to not uphold its policy requiring development plans and allows the application to proceed, it is possible that a challenge in court will follow that decisiono Knowing the potential for court challenges and realizing that any decision made by staff will be challenged is also one of the reasons that I have asked for the Commission decision and direction on this issue. Recommendation The policy, as written, is a good policy beneficial to the public at large, developers and the annexing agency. The policy, as written, has been applied to previous applications and will most likely be applied to future applications, unless the Commission chooses to change this policy. In the interest of fairness, consistency and not wanting to set a precedent, it can be argued that applying this policy for this application is appropriate. It can also be argued that the lack of adopted annexation "plans and policies" by the City, as mentioned in Section 56375(a)(3), allows for annexation without providing a development plan and should prevail over the Commission's development policy and other aspects of the law citied above. Whatever the decision of the Commission, it shouM be made via a motion, second and roll call vote of the Commission. There are two possible motions: Motion #1: Based upon the preponderance of information in the record, move to uphold the Commission's policy as written and direction is given to staff to process the application, once received, according to the requirements of LAFCO's development policy. Motion 02: Based Section 56375(a)(3), move to override the Commission's policy as written and direction is given to staffto process the application, once received, without the requirements of LAFCO's development policy. For the purpose of providing clear notice to all parties, Government Code Section 56105 states: "Any protest or objection pertaining to the regularity or sufficiency of any proceedings or commission proceedings shall be in writing, clearly specify the defect, error, irregularity, or omission to which protest or objection is made and shall be filed within the time and in the manner provided by this divisiott Any protest or objection pertaining to any of these matters which is not made and~filed is deemed voluntarily waived" Section 56895 provides for a 30-day reconsideration period for filing protest or objection for when a commission has adopted a resolution making determinations. While this decision is being made by motion and minute order and not by a resolution, it would appear that the 30-day period would apply for a motion making a determination as well. Attachments: 1. Plan For Services requirements as taken from LAFCO Policy and Procedures 2. Map of Cox-Mayfield Brush Street Annexation area as received from City of Ukiah 3. Future Development Scenario Table as Developed by City of Ukiah 4. Excerpts from the City of Ukiah's General Plan, Land Use Element 5. City of Ukiah Resolution No. 2005-26 certifying EIR for Orr Creek Bridge and Brush Street extension 6. Map of Study Area for the Orr Creek Bridge and Brush Street Extension 7. Policy Regarding Significant and Adverse Environmental Impacts as taken from LAFCO's CEQA Policy and Procedures l0 LAFCO of Mendocino County Policy and Procedures per AB 2838--2002 · These requirements are in acidition to any legal descriptions and map requirements for proposed changes of organization for affected territories. · The map and legal description shall be prepared by a registered engineer according to the requirements of LAFCO and Board of Equalization. · If the proposal is approved, the Agency Map will include an updated legal description and map including the change of territory as part of the boundaries of the agency. · The map and legal description will be circulated to County Planning and the County Surveyor for reviev~ and comment. If there are issues of dispute of description of boundaries, or overlap of boundaries with other agencies that provide like services, then these issues will need to be resolved before approval will be given for any territorial changes. · Agency boundary lines or Sphere of Influence lines may generally follow natural features provided they follow legal parcel lines and do not bisect a parcel. · Acceptance of the map by the Executive Officer is not a confirmation of agreement to the sphere of influence boundaries as submitted. · LAFCO is the final determiner of spheres of influence and may make changes as it considers appropriate through due process. . In all cases legal descriptions that meet the requirements of BOE will be acceptable to LAFCO. . All the Initial, Final and Agency maps must be 18 X 26 inches in size if the scale of proposal allows this size. If a larger size is needed, use 24 X 36 inches. Area Map size can be as considered appropriate by agreement with the Executive Officer (i.e. not too small to see detail) · The number of Area Maps and Initial Maps needed by LAFCO will vary according to the complexity of the proposal and the number of parties and affected agencies that must be noticed regarding the requested change in organization or reorganization. · The number of copies of Area Map(s) and Initial Map(s) needed will be 12 plus copies for the number of agencies that are to be notified. · The number of Agency Maps needed for the initial submission will be 12. If the change of boundary is approved, the final Agency Map must reflect the change in territory as approved. · The Final Map and final Agency Map will need to be submitted on Mylar with 8 copies. tH. PLAN FOR SERVICES LAFCO's mission includes oversight of the orderly formation and development of local agencies including the provision of efficient and economical services. LAFCO requires that all service providers must document their ability to provide service to proposed annexations. An evaluation of an agency's plan for services is necessary for the proper consideration of any change of organization or reorganization which expands or 46 LAFCO of Mendocino County Policy and Procedures per AB 2838--2002 diminishes a service provider's responsibilities. The intent of plan for service evaluations is to ensure that the capacity, cost, and adequacy of service within the existing district oc city are not adversely impacted by the proposed LAFCO action and that the agency cai', provide all the services to the subject territory as the same level, or greater, than thai presently received by the existing agency territory. [56375(g), 56375(h), 56668, 56653] The following information requirements will enable the applicant and LAFCO to obtain information necessary to render a fair and informed decision. During the mandatory pre- application conference, LAFCO staff will assist the applicant with the determination of required project specific plan for service information. . Applications shall include a plan to provide services which includes information needed to render an informed decision on the project. [56653] . Plan for Service submittals are required to contain the following information and any additional information required by the Commission or the Executive Officer~ [56653(b)] · An enumeration and description of services to be extended to the affected territory · The level and range of those services · An indication of when those services can feasibly be extended to the affected territory · A list of any improvements or upgrading of structures, roads, sewer or water facilities, or other terms and conditions the affected agency would impose or require within the affected territory, if the change of organization or reorganization is completed · A list of any improvements, upgrading of structures, roads, sewer or water facilities, or permits needed to be obtained or approvals required by any local, regional, state or federal agencies and the terms and conditions of any such required permits or approvals required for present operations or which would be required if the change of organization or reorganization is completed. (Copies will be required for verification) · A list of any contracts, special orders, injUnctions, court orders, administrative decision or other such documents controlling the ability of the affected agency to provide service from any local, regional, state or federal agency and the terms and conditions of such documents. (Copies will be required for verification) · Information as to adequacy of water [56668(k)] (See Section I, Adequacy of Water below) · Information with respect to how those services will be financed · Information as to reserve capacity required for existing parcels or territories (See Item 5 below) · Any data or information as may be required by any regulation of the Commission [56650(d) and 56653(b)] · Any additional data and information, as may be required by the Executive Officer [56650(e) and 56653(b)] 47 LAFCO of Mendocino County Policy and Procedures per AB 2838--2002 . . . . . . All applicant agencies must provide a capacity analysis which states: · The number of service units available (units can be described as parcels, meters, equivalent dwelling units or other project specific units of measure as approved by the Executive Officer) · The number of service units currently allocated · The total number of service units within the agency's boundaries, including assessment districts, that are entitled to receive service · The number of service units proposed to be added as result of the annexation · The total number of service units entitled to receive services as a result of the proposed project. · In the event that the applicant or annexing agency finds that there are not enough service units available to provide for the total number of service units entitled to receive service as a result of the proposed project, the agency shall provide a plan for obtaining the capacity necessary to provide service. All applicant agencies must provide a description of the size and capacity of existing infrastructure along with a map that depicts the location of the infrastructure. The agency must provide a statement disclosing its disposition regarding its responsibility to reserve capacity for unserved parcels and a current list of unserved property within its current boundaries. The list shall include the assessor parcel number, address or location of the parcel, names of owners, the mailing address of the owners, the zoning for the parcels and the capacity needed to provide service to each parcel for present zoning. The list shall be provided in Microsoft Word or Excel and shall be titled Reserve Capacity Requirements for Parcels in Existing Territory with the name of the agency above the title and the date below. The agency must provide a list of conditions that the proposed annexation parcels or territory must meet in order to receive services from the annexing agency, such as annexation costs, facility plan report, fire flow requirements, and a statement regarding who is responsible'to fund required items. The affected agency must provide a statement of intent to provide all the services for which it is responsible to the affected territory. The statement shall include: · A description of the affected territory requirements to fund infrastructure so that areas within the existing district can be served, or will continue to be served, at the same or higher level of service. · Documentation that the affected territory service areas will be accommodated at the same level of service as that received by the existing agency territory. If service cannot be provided without expanding service capacity or constructing infrastructure other than parcel connections to service, then the following information is required: 48 LAFCO of Mendocino County Policy and Procedures per AB 2838---2002 A description of any required facility or infrastructure expansions or other information shall be provided. · A schedule of completion of the expanded capacity project, the viability of the needed project, and the relation of the subject property to the overall project and project time line. · A list of required administrative and legislated processes such as CEQA review, local, regional, state or federal permits required (such as State Water Resource Control Board allocation permits, Regional Water Quality Permits or the like) including assessment of likelihood of approval of any permits and existence of any pending, or threatened, legal or administrative challenges. · The planned total capacity · The size and location of needed capital improvements · The proposed project cost, financing plan and financing mechanism including a description of the persons or properties that would be expected to bear the costs. Any proposed alternative projects if the preferred project cannot be completed; include information required above for each proposed alternative. . No the application to annex to a special district or city shall be deemed complete until following information is provided: A statement that the annexing agency will be capable of providing adequate services when such services are projected to be needed within the area being annexed. A statement that the furnishing of adequate services at such time as such services are needed within the area being annexed will not result in a significant fiscal impact, service level decline, or other negative impact in the existing service area within the boundaries of the present district or city 10. No application will be deemed filed until a plan for services is received and accepted as complete by the Executive Officer and the Executive Officer is hereby directed not to issue a Certificate of Filing until the Plan for Services meets the requirements of this section. 11. All Plans for Services information shall be provide as a hard copy and a disc using Microsoft Word or Excel as appropriate. L FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED Factors to be considered in the review of a proposal as required by Government Code Section 56668 are: · Population density; land area and land use; per capita assessed valuations; topography, natural boundaries, and drainage basins; proximity to other populated areas; the likelihood of significant growth in the area, and in adjacent incorporated and unincorporated areas during the next 10 years. · Need for organized community services; the present cost and adequacy of government services and controls in the area; probable future needs for 49 ATTACHMENT NO. COX- BRUSH STREET ANNEXATION developed with a 1 002O5014 I . 00205015'_ 00205019; 0 95 190 380 570 Feet 760 ATTACHMENT NO. lle ,.~ FUTURE DEVELOPMENT SCENARIO TABLE TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT Existing Self Storage Commercial (C-1) Multi-Family Residential Single Family Residential 39 TOTAL ACRES 10.53 3.12 9.75 15.6 DEVELOPMENT POTENT]:AL Existing - Built out 54,363 square feet 181 parking spaces 273 high density apartment units 500+ parking spaces 125 detached single family residences SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL FUTURE DEVELOPMENT: The property owners envision a mix of commercial and residential land uses, with an emphasis on a variety of residential housing types. It is assumed that future high density residential land uses would be two-story in height, and may include three-story structures. A conceptual circulation system has not been developed at this time, and it is unknown if future development would include public open space or parks. / City of Ukiah ~ Mendocino County Ukiah Valley General Plan and Growth Management Program VI.4. Land Use ~, Page 7 Conservation Element which protects active agricultural lands in the Valley. Agriculturally-viable soil is a fixed resource -- it cannot be replaced. 4.03.01(B) Residential uses. While the Housing Element focuses solely on the City's needs to ensure lands for 775 new residential units over the next five years, the County also has residential land requirements for the Ukiah Valley. The Mendocino Council of Governments -- which is responsible for assigning the "fair share" housing needs -- identifies that the unincorporated County in the Uk/ah Valley Area has a five year housing need of 1,431 units.7 Residential land allocations must ensure that (1) there is adequate land area within the County to meet this need over the next five years; and (2) that County residentially-designated lands annexed into the City result in a transfer of the regional housing fair share from the County to the City. Because the Sphere of Influence proposes to be the ultimate City boundaries, the land uses in the Sphere should be at population densities and building intensities compatible with those permitted in the City. New residential land 'use patterns need to be located in areas where the new populations can be served by local government without placing tmdue fiscal strains on the new property owners, the City, the County, or various special districts. Urban-scale land uses -- low, medium, and high density residential -- generally need to be located west of U.S. Highway 101 where there are adequate public facilities and services. West of the river there is a generally adequate system of roads, feasible means of providing transit, closer proximity to employment, and fewer conflicts with environmental constraints. The vision to maintain quality of life issues and resource protection is best achieved with urban development locating west of the highway. 4.03.01(C) "Urban" areas within the Ukiah Valley: Calpella, the Forks, North State, and Talmage There are four distinct areas in the General Plan that define where new urban-scale land uses may be sited. These are (1) the City of Ukiah; (2) the Ukiah Sphere of Influence;g (3) the Rural Communities (Calpella, The Forks, Talmage) and the North State Complex; (4) Master Plan Areas? The City of Ukiah is the central city to the Ukiah Valley -- and much of Mendocino and Lake counties -- serving as a regional center of employment, shopping, and housing. As a full service City, Ukiah is able to provide services to urban development in a fiscally responsible manner. The Ukiah Sphere of Influence represents an area that may be the ultimate.City limits during the life of the General Plan (a twenty year period). Virtually all portions, of the proposed Sphere are located within range of city services. With the potential for annexation, the Sphere of Influence is a likely area in which urban land uses may be sited. Within the unincorporated Planning Area there are three Rural Communities -- Calpella, Talmage, and The Forks. Calpella is a community developed around a lumber mill which is now closed. The ~Vlendocino County Board of Supervisors, Mendocino County General Plan Housing Element (Ukiah: Mendocino County, April 26, 1993), Table 10.2-5, page 1-61. The data in the Unincorporated Ukiah area includes lands outside of the General Plan Planning Area. al'he Sphere of Influence referred to in the General Plan is based on the Sphere of Influence proposed by the Plan and not the current adopted Sphere. The final boundaries of the Sphere are subject to adoption by the Mendocino County Local Agency Formation Commission. 9The Lovers Lane Specific Plan Area, which is an type of Master Plan Area is within the City's Sphere of Influence. Adopted by the City Council: December 6, 1995 Ukiah Valley General Plan and Growth Management Program City of Ukiah · Mendocino County, California VI.4. Land Use ~, Page 8 community has a mix of all densities and character of residential uses, commercial, and industrial land uses. Calpella is recognized as an area in which future community land uses may be sited. The Forks is a former train station at the forks of the Russian River branches. The area is a central commercial and industrial community that connects rural residential communities north and east of the Russian River branches with the main highway and the City of Ukiah. Talmage also has a mixture of residential densities, limited commercial uses, and agriculturally-related industries. It also has a private religious institution, the City of Ten Thousand Buddhists. Talmage has served as an agrarian center, and community belief is that this role should continue, and intense commercial or non-agriculturally related industrial uses should not be proposed in this area. The North State Complex is not a Rural Community of residential, commercial, and industrial uses. Rather, it is a central point of business and commerce for portions of the unincorporated County. The area has long been developed with heavy industrial uses, such as the Masonite Mill and the Louisiana Pacific Mill. The intent of the North State Complex is to become an exclusive commercial and industrial area. Master Plan Areas are a new classification in the Ukiah Valley. Master Plan Areas are intended to cover lands proposed for "specific plans," "area plans," or as "planned unit developments.l° A Specific Plan is called out in California law as an adopted plan that provides precise development standards and policies for an area of land. State law specifies what must be included in a Specific Plan.. Sometimes a private developer, the City, or County would prefer to have a less precise development proposal to be considered for adoption. The role of the Master Plan Area is to permit an area within the Ukiah Valley to be designated for more precise, site specific studies prior to approving subdivisions or other uses. This is to be called a "Master Plan Area." A Master Plan area permits the following: Amending the General Plan to show an area of one or more ownerships as a location for which a separate planning document has been prepared. Preparing an area plan for the Master Plan Area that will identify land use and other development and environmental policies applicable to the defined area. Master Plans need not address all elements of the General Plan, but only those elements and policies applicable to the area. However, General Plan policies not addressed in the Master Plan still apply to the Master Plan area. · Master Plans must be consistent with the General Plan. The Master Plan Area land use classification is to be applied to the parcels contained within a Master Plan or a Specific Plan at the time of adoption by the City or County. If the General Plan is undergoing an update or revision, and a Master Plan or Specific Plan is being prepared, the revised or updated General Plan may show the subject property as a Master Plan Area. 4.03.02 General Plan goals, policies, and implementing programs Goal LU-3: Protect agricultural lands from urban encroachment. Policy LU-3.1: Retain agricultural lands as areas in which urban land uses shall be precluded. ~°While the General Plan was being prepared, a Specific Plan proposal is pending for the Lovers Lane area north of the City. Adopted by the City Council: December 6, 1995 City of Ukia. h ~1, Mendocino County Ukiah Valley General Plan and Growth Management Program VI.4. Land Use ~, Page 9 implementan'on Measure LU-3.1 (a): The Land Use Map shall depict locations for urban land uses such as the City of Uldah, the City of Ukiah Sphere of Influence, the Rural Communities, and the North State Complex. [Timeframe tot completion: Ongoing planning period ~, Measure applies to: City and County ~, Agency/Department responsible: Planning Commissions] Implementation Measure LU-3.1 (b): Densities for new parcels within the Agricultural land use classification on the Land Use map shall be limited to one dwelling per forty or more acres. [Timeframe for completion: Ongoing planning period ~, Measure applies to: City and County ~, Agency/Department responsible: City Department of Planning and County Department of Planning and Building] Implementation Measure LU-3.1 (c): Densities for new parcels within the Rural Residential land use classification on the Land Use map shall be limited to one dwelling unit per one or more acres. At a minimum, the density shall be based on the siting criteria identified in the Plan, Population Density and Building Intensity. [Timeframe for com- pletion: Ongoing planning period'S, Measure applies to: City and County ~, Agency/Depart- ment responsible: City Department of Planning and County Department of Planning and Building] Implementation Measure LU-3.1(d): Densities for new parcels within the Remote Residential land use classification on the Land Use map shall be limited to one dwelling unit per forty or more acres. At a minimum, and depending on the slope of the parcel, the density shall be based on the siting criteria identified in the Plan and on Table VI, VI.4, 4-44, 44, Population Density and Building Intensity. [Timeframe for completion: Ongoing planning period ~, Measure_applies to: City and County ~, Agency/Department re- sponsible: City Department of Planning and County Department of Planning and Building] Implementation Measure LU-3.1 (e): Densities for new parcels within the Range and Resource Land use classification shall be limited to one dwelling unit per one hundred and sixty or more acres. [Timeframe for completion: Ongoing planning period -~, Measure ap- plies to: City and County ~, Agency/Department responsible: City Department of Planning and County Department of Planning and Building] Implementation Measure LU-3.1(f): No commercial or industrial land uses shall be permitted outside of the urban areas (the City of Ukiah, the City of Ukiah's Sphere of Influence, the Rural Communities, and the North State Street Complex) of the General Plan, unless defined as agriculturally related. [Timeframo for complotion: OngOing planning period ~, Measure applies to: City and County ~, Agency/Department re- sponsible: Planning Commissions] Implementation Measure LU-3.1 (g): No land uses shall be approved fOr which a finding can be substantiated that the new use will have an unmitigated adverse impact on existing agricultural land uses and businesses. [Timeframe for completion: Ongoing planning period ~, Measure applies to: City and County ,~ Agency/Department responsible: Planning Commissions] Goal LU-4: Policy L U-4.1: Balance the housing needs of the City and County. The City shall respect the County's need to provide an adequate inventory of land to accommodate its fair share of housing for the unincorporated Planning Area. Adopted by the City Council: December 6, 1995 Ukiah Valley General Plan and Growth Management Program City of Ukiah ~ Mendocino County, California VI.4. Land Use ~, Page 10 G Implementation Measure LU-4.1 (a): As a condition of annexation of residential lands from the County, the City's Housing Element shall be amended to increase the City's housing fair share by the number of needed housing units the County is surrendering. The County's Housing Element shall be amended to reflect the reduction in housing "fair share." [Timeframe for completion: Ongoing Measure applies to: City ~, planning period · ~ Agency/Department responsible: City Council] Implementation Measure LU-4. l(b): In reviewing applications for development within the unincorporated County submitted to the City for comment, the City shall give consideration to the County's regional "fair share" housing needs. [Timeframe for completion: Ongoing planning period 4, Measure applies to: City ~, Agency/Department re- sponsible: Planning Department] oal LU-5: Generally urban residential land uses shall be located west of the Russian River. Policy LU-5. I: Locate Low Density, Medium Density, and High Density Residential Land uses predominantly west of the Russian River and near urban areas. Implementation Measure LU-5.1 (a): The following table shall identify where urban residential land use densities may be located within the Ukiah Valley: [Timeframe for completion: Ongoing planning period ~, Measure applies to: City and County ~, Agency/Department re- sponsible: Planning Departments] Table VI.4-42: Urban Residential Land Use Siting Goal LU-6: Utilize Master Plan Areas to meet precise planning needs. Policy LU-6. I: Allow the use of Master Plan Areas to provide for mixed use development, transit- oriented development, and other precise-planning needs for larger ownerships or groups of ownerships. Implementation Measure LU-6. I (a): Master Plan Areas may be initiated through General Plan Amendments by property owners, the City, or the County as a means of meeting comprehensive planning needs or special and unique circumstances that are best served through a planning document that focuses on a particular area. [Timeframe Adopted by the City Council: December 6, 1995 City of Ukiah ~1, Mendocino County Ukiah Valley General Plan and Growth Management Program VI.4. Land Use ~, Page 11 for completion: Ongoing planning period ~, Measure applies to: City and County ~, Agen- cy/Department responsible: Planning Departments] Implementation Measure LU-6. I (b): Master Plan Area policies shall be consistent with the General Plan, although Master Plan Area policies may be more specific and precise than the General Plan, or the policies may address more issues than identified in the General Plan. [Timeframe for completion: Ongoing planning period ~, Measure applies to: City and County ~, Agency/Departmentresponsible: Planning Departments] Implementation Measure LU-6. I (c): Policies within the General Plan that are not specifically addressed in a Master Plan shall apply to the Master Plan Area. [Timeframe for com- pletion: Ongoing planning period ~l, Measure applies to: City and County ~, Agency/Depart- ment responsible: Planning Department] Implementation Measure LU-6.1 (d): When a Master Plan is adopted, the General Plan land use map shall be amended to show the area of the Master Plan as the "[Name of Plan] Master Plan Area," with the notation to "refer to the [Name of Plan] Master Plan.' Adopting the Master Plan shall be deemed the action that also amends the General Plan land use map. [Timeframe for completion: Ongoing planning period ~. Mea- sure applies to: City and County ~, Agency/Department responsible: Planning Department] Implementation Measure LU-6.1 (e): Specific Plans meeting the requirements of California law may be substituted for Master Plans when it is the preferable planning program. [Timeframe for completion: Ongoing planning period ~, Measure applies to: City and County ~, Agency/Department responsible: Planning Department] Implementation Measure LU-6.1 09: Master Plans shall be adopted utilizing the same process as a General Plan amendment. [Timeframe for completion: Ongoing planning period ~, Measure applies to: City and County ~, Agency/Department responsible: Planning Department] Implementation Measure LU-6.1(g): The area of the Lovers Lane Specific Plan shall be identified on the Land Use Map as the "Lovers Lane Master Plan Area." Any other master plans or specific plans that are in progress shall be identified in the General Plan as the "[Name of Plan] Master Plan Area." [Timeframe torcompletion: Short-term planning period ~, Measure applies to: City and County ~, Agency/Department responsible: City Planning Department, County Department of Planning and Building] 4.04 Resource lands 4.04.01 Agricultural Land Use (AG) 4.04.01(A) Summary of major findings Purpose: The Agricultural Lands classification applies to lands which are suited for and are used for production of crops, most lands under agricultural preserve contracts, land having present or future potential for agricultural production, and contiguous or intermixed smaller parcels on which non-compatible uses could jeopardize the agricultural use of agricultural lands. Lands within the AG classification are protected from encroachment of incompatible uses by the "Right to Farm" provisions of the Open Space and Conservation Element. Agriculture lands are intended to include both the growing, raising, and harvesting of agricultural produce, fruit, or livestock. In addition, based on performance standards established in the development code, uses related to the production or processing of agricultural products may be permitted or conditionally permitted. Adopted by the City Council: December 6, 1995 Ukiah Valley General Plan and Growth Management Program City of Ukiah/1~ Mendocino County, California VI.4. Land Use ~ Page 12 4.04.01(B) General Plan policies identifying standards and requirements for the implementing program for this zone Examples of allowable uses: Single family dwellings, orchards, row crops, irrigated pasture, grazing land, vineyards, Christmas tree farms, farm and ranch labor housing, agriculturally-related industries, wineries, food processing; mineral resource extraction. Siting issues for new parcels or new construction: Location: Parcels to be included in the AG land use classification may be located in the City of Ukiah, City of Ukiah Sphere of Influence, Rural Community areas, Master Plan Areas, and the remainder of the Unincorporated Planning Area. Access: No requirements for fanning, orchards, or ranching. Processing and production may have limitations based on the proposed use and traffic generation. Access to new structures: New related uses, such as food processing or wineries, may be required to have paved access depending on the type of general traffic, public access, and other issues. Design review: Exempt for individual single family dwellings, farms, ranches, and orchards. Wineries or processing facilities may be required to be reviewed. Maximum building intensity: No limitation for farms, ranches, and orchards. Agricultural product processing facilities may have limits through the use permit process. Maximum residential density: One dwelling unit per forty acres of land area. Second dwellings: One second dwelling subject to an administrative permit within the unincorporated Planning Area. Labor housing may be permitted with an administrative use permit or conditional use permit review. Special development issues: Fire safety standards per the requirements of the responsible fire protection agency shall be satisfied within both incorporated and unincorporated areas. Development alternative: Density transfer and cluster development permitted. 4.04.02 Range and Resource Lands (RL) 4.04.02(A) Summary of major findings Purpose: The Range and Resource Lands (RL) classification applies to lands which are suited for and are appropriately retained for the grazing of livestock, timber production, and mineral extraction and production. The classification includes other lands generally in range use, intermixed smaller parcels and other contiguous lands, the inclusion of which is necessary for the protection and efficient management of range lands. The Range and Resource Lands classification includes lands which have been identified and are classified as mineral resource lands, and lands utilized for commercial timber harvest and reforestation. Range and Resource Lands may also include lands which are appropriate for conservation as natural resources, such as steep hillsides. Adopted by the City Council: December 6, 1995 RESOLUTION NO. 2005-26 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH ~IAKING FINDINGS PURSUANT TO PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE ("PRC") CALIFORNIA ENV~RONI~IENTAL GUIDELtNES SECTION 15091 OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION SECTION 21081 AND QUALI'TY ACT ("CEQA") AND A STATEMENT OF IN ACCORDANCE WI'I'H PRC §21081(b) AND GUIDEI./NES §15093 IN CONNECT/ON WI-I'H THE DECISION TO CERTIFY AN ENVIRONMENTAL II~tPACT REPORT AND APPROVE THE ORR CREEK BRIDGE AND ORCHARD AVENUE EXTENS]'ON PRO.1ECT WHEREAS: 1. The City Council has certified as adequate and complete an Environmental l~mpact Report ("E]:R") for proposed roadway improvements and the extension of Orchard Avenue and the construction of a bridge over Orr Creek. The EIR consists of a Draft Environmental ]impact Report, dated October 2002, ("DEIR"), a Final Environmental Impact Report, including a response to comments, dated December 2002, ("FETR'~, and an EIR Addendum, dated November 2004, ("Addendum'~; IVlitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and 2. The project includes the extension of Orchard Avenue from Ford Street to Brush Street, and the construction of a 62-foot wide, 95-foot long bridge over Orr Creek ("the Project"). The roadway would be striped; and 3. The E1~R has identified significant environmental impacts of the Project; and 4. The EIR has determined that all of the project sPecific adverse environmental impacts can be mitigated to acceptable levels; and 5. The Final EIR has found that one adverse environmental impact from the growth the project may induce within the Study Area that cannot be mitigated to a level considered insignificant. Study Area as used in this Resolution is defined as the "Brush Street Triangle'; an area bordered by U.S. Highway 101 on the east and north, Orr Creek on the South, and the NWP railroad tracks on the west; and Orr Creek Bridge/Orchard Avenue Extension Environmental Impact Report Ob/Counol Resolution January 5, 2005 6. As stated below, the City Council has made the findings and the statement of overriding considerations required, where, as here, a project has an adverse environmental impact that cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance; and 7. The City hereby undertakes a legally.binding commitment to comply with the mitigation measures under the City's control, which are incorporated into the Project; and 8. The City Council has determined to approve the Project; and 9. The City Council has based its decision on the record which includes those items identified in Public Resources Code Section 21167.6(e), including, but not limited to, the E]~R, including the appendices to the El:R, the E]:R Addendum, and the staff report; and 10. The record of proceedings upon which this decision is basedj including the Orr Creek Bridge/Orchard Avenue Extension project file, is maintained in the office of the Director of Planning and Community Development, as well as the office of the Public Works Director/City Engineer, Civic Center, 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, CA 95482, as the custodians of the record, and is available for public inspection upon request of the Director of Planning and Community Development, the Public Works Director/City Engineer or their designee; and 11. PRC section 21081 and CEQA Guideline section 15091 provide that the City shall not approve or carry out a project for which an E[R has been completed which identifies one or more significant environmental impacts, unless it makes specified findings; and 12. PRC section 21081(b) and CEQA Guideline section 15093 require a Statement of Overriding Considerations for a project that will have any unmitigated adverse environmental impacts; NOW, THEREFORE, BE ~ RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Ukiah finds as follows. 1. The E]:R was prepared and made available for public review and comment in full compliance with the procedures set forth in CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. Orr Creek Bddge/Orchard Avenue Extension Environmental ~mpact Report Qb/Coundl Resolution January 5, 2005 2. The ETR was considered by the City Council at public meetings on December 15, 2004 and .lanuary 5, 2005. 3. The City Council has considered all documents submitted during the public comment period for the E1~R and all testimony presented during its meetings as well as the EIR, the Staff Reports, dated December 15, 2004 and .lanuary 5, 2005, and the Orr Creek Bridge/Orchard Avenue Extension File. The Staff Reports are incorporated herein by reference. The City Council has independently reviewed and analyzed this resolution and the EIR. 4. The Project is described in the EIR, including the DEIR at pp. 7-8. This description is incorporated herein by reference. 5. The EIR evaluated the impacts of the Project itself as well as its impacts in combination with impacts from past, present and probable future projects. Those impacts, both individual and cumulative, as well as growth-inducing impacts, along with recommended mitigation measures and suggested conditions, are summarized in the Impact and Mitigation Summary Table in the DEIR pp. 27-52. 6. Measures designed to avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of the Project as identified in the EI~R are set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan ("Plan"), attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference. The measures constitute binding commitments of the City, if the Project is approved by responsible agencies upon acceptable conditions and undertaken by the City and those measures shall be incorporated into the Project and monitored in accordance with the Plan. 7. Geology. Pro~ect Specific Impacts: The EIR determined that the project, if improperly constructed, cOuld cause landsliding and soil erosion, could fail' in the event of an earthquake, and could fail due to overall soil constraints. The EIR proposes that the City prepare and implement a comprehensive erosion control plan to ensure no significant soil erosion. The EIR also proposes that the final bridge On' Creek Bridge/Orchard Avenue Extension Environment31 Impact Report City Council Resolution .lanuary 5, 2005 design include a hydrologic study to determine if additional rock armoring of the north stream bank will be required to protect the bridge abutment. Tt also proposes that the City enter into a Streambed Alteration Agreement with the State Department of Fish and Game, as required by State Law. The City Council commits to these mitigation measures. The City Council finds that these mitigation measures will avoid or reduce to insignificance the adverse environmental effect of potential landslides and soil erosion, project failure in the event of an earthquake, and potential failure due to overall soil constraints. Growth-Inducing Impacts: The E]:R determined that future development in the unincorporated Study Area could be subject to damage from earthquakes; that site soils could pose constraints to future development; and construction of improvements could cause soil erosion. The document proposes a series of mitigation measures to off-set these impacts to levels considered less than significant. However, the project approval does not require the City to mitigate these impacts because (1) CEQA requires a discussion, but not the mitigation of growth-inducing impacts and (2) even if the City were required to mitigate these growth-inducing impacts, these Study Area properties are outside the City limits, and the City lacks the legal authority to mitigate impacts in the unincorporated area. (See CEQA Guidelines Section 15:~264(a)(5).) The mitigation measures discussed in the EIR will provide guidance to the County of IVlendocino in mitigating these impacts, when it evaluates projects proposed for that area. The City has negotiated a Road Improvement and Land Use Agreement ("Land Use Agreement'~ with theCounty that requires the County to adopt an ordinance requiring discretionary review of such pro~ects. The Land Use Agreement partially mitigates these growth-inducing impacts by requiring the County to evaluate them in compliance with CEQA and to comply with CEQA in reviewing and approving them. 8. Hydrology. Project Specific Impacts: The E]:R determined that runoff from the new street (Orchard Avenue extension) would transport pollutants to Orr Creek. The EIR proposes that a stormwater interceptor Orr Creek Bridge/Orchard Avenue Extension Environmental Impact Report Oty Counol ResotuUon ~lanuary S, 2005 be constructed to intercept runoff from pavement before it enters Orr Creek. The stormwater interceptor shall be of a type and design to be approved by all applicable State and Federal agencies. The City Council commits to these mitigation measures. Under the Land Use Agreement, the City will construct these improvements in the unincorporated area which will allow the City to comply with these requirements. The City Council finds that this mitigation measure will avoid or reduce to insignificance the adverse environmental effect of potential pollution from the new street being transported into Orr Creek. Growth-Inducing Impacts: The EIR determined that future development in the unincorporated Study Area would be located in the 100-year floodplain; that construction of new buildings and roads would increase flooding; and that runoff from paved areas and roofs would transport pollutants to Orr Creek. The document proposes a series of mitigation measures to off-set these impacts to levels considered less than significant. However, the project approval does not require the City to mitigate these impacts, because (1) CEQA requires a discussion, but not the mitigation of growth-inducing impacts and (2) even if the City were required to mitigate these growth-inducing impacts, these Study Area properties are outside the City limits, and the City lacks the legal authority to mitigate impacts in the unincorporated area. (See CEQA Guidelines Section 151264(a)(5).) The mitigation measures discussed in the EIR will provide guidance to the County of Mendocino in mitigating these impacts, when it evaluates projects proposed for that area. The City has negotiated the Land Use Agreement with the County which partially mitigates these growth-inducing impacts by requiring the County to evaluate them in compliance with CEQA. 9. Wildlife and Vegetation. Project Specific Impacts: The E[R determined that construction of the project improvements could adversely affect water quality, which could lead to impacts on wildlife and its habitat along Orr Creek. To offset this impact, the EIR proposes that the City, in consultation with applicable agencies, identify and prioritize specific stream enhancement projects between Highway 101 and Orr Street. Orr Creek Bridge/Orchard Avenue Extension Environmental Impact Report City Council Resolution ~anuary 5, 2005 The EIR suggests that the enhancement projects could be funded by future development in the Study Area with the establishment of an impact fee program pursuant to AB1600, Government Code Section 66000. The City Council commits to these mitigation measures. The City Council finds that this mitigation measure will avoid or reduce to' insignificance the adverse environmental effect of project construction on wildlife and vegetation. Growth-Inducing Impacts: The EIR determined that future .development in the unincorporated Study Area could result in impacts to Orr Creek and its riparian vegetation that could eliminate wildlife habitat. It also determined that future development could affect wetlands. The EIR proposes a series of mitigation measures to off-set these impacts to levels considered less than significant. These mitigation measures include the erosion control measures described for the project specific impacts to be applied to all future development, not allowing development within 100-feet of the top of the bank of Orr Creek, landscaping the 100-loot"buffer zone" with native plant species, ensuring that lighting does not cast glare on the riparian "buffer zone'; requiring future development to contribute financially to creek restoral~ion projects, protecting the valley oak trees in the Study Area, incorporating an open space plan for the Study Area that establishes open space areas along the drainages and creek, and requiring future project sites to be surveyed for jurisdictional wetlands. However, the project approval does not require the City to mitigate these impacts, because (1) CEQA requires a discussion, but not the mitigation of growth-inducing impacts and (2) even if the City were required to mitigate these growth-inducing impaCts, these Study Area properties are outside the City limits, and the City lacks the legal authority to mitigate impacts in the unincorporated area. (See CEQA Guidelines Section 151264(a)(5).) The mitigation measures discussed in the EIR will provide guidance to the County of Mendocino in mitigating these impacts, when it evaluates projects propoSed for that area. The City has negotiated the Land Use Agreement with the County which partially mitigates these growth-inducing impacts by requiring the County to evaluate them in compliance with CEQA. Orr Creek Bridge/Orchard Avenue Extension Environmental Impact Report Ob/Council Resolul~on ~lanuary 5, 2005 10. Cultural Resources. Project Specific Impacts: The EIR determined that the bridge and street improvement project could potentially damage cultural resources. To address this potentially significant impact, the E1~R proposes that if cultural resources are discovered during site preparation or project construction, all work shall be halted immediately, and the City shall engage the services of a qualified professional archaeologist to perform a field reconnaissance and to develop a precise mitigation program, if 'necessary. The City Council commits to these mitigation measures. The City Council finds that this mitigation measure will avoid or reduce to insignificance the adverse environmental effect on'cultural resources. Growth-~[nducing l~mpacts: The E]:R determined that future development in the unincorporated Study Area could result in potentially significant adverse impacts on cultural resources. To mitigate this growth-inducing impact, the E]:R proposes that as part of the subsequent environmental review for future development, the Mendocino County Archaeological Commission shall review the project site to determine whether there is a possibility of archaeological resources being present. The Commission shall determine whether field surveys are warranted and required. ]:f such a survey is required, then the survey shall be conducted and recommendations shall be made for recording and preserving artifacts. Future development would then be planned and constructed consistent with the recommendations of the archaeologist. The E]:R further proposes that the archaeological surveys and work be done as part of a comprehensive planning process for the Study Area. However, the project approval does not require the City to mitigate these impacts, because (1) CEQA requires a discussion, but not the mitigation of growth-inducing impacts and (2) even if the City were required to mitigate these growth-inducing impacts, these Study Area properties are outside the City limits, and the City lacks the legal authority to mitigate impacts in the unincorporated area. (See CEQA Guidelines Section 151264(a)(5).) The mitigation measures discussed inthe E]~R will provide guidance to the County of Mendocino in mitigating these impacts, when it evaluates Orr Creek Bridge/Orchard Avenue Extension Environmental Impact Report Qty Coundl Resolution ]anua~/S, 2005 projects proposed for that area. The City has negotiated the Land Use Agreement with the County which partially mitigates these growth-inducing impacts by requiring the County to evaluate them in compliance with CEQA. 11. Air (~uality, ., Project Specific Impacts: The E]:R determined that the construction, of the bridge and street improvements would §enerate significant amounts of dust (particulate matter), which would de§rade air quality. To address this potentially significant impact, the E[R proposes that control measures be incorporated into the project that would reduce the impact to a level that is considered less than sicjnificant. These measures include waterin§ all active construction areas twice daily, coverin§ all soil hauling trucks, pave, water and/or apply non-toxic soil binders to unpaved roadway areas and exposed soil stockpile areas, sweep all appropriate areas daily, limit traffic speeds on any unpaved surfaces, and replant vegetation in disturbed areas as soon as practical. The £ity Council commits to these miticjation measures. The City Council finds that these mitigation measures will avoid or reduce to insi§nificance the adverse environmental effect on air quality. Growth-Indu¢in§ Impacts: The E[R determined that future development in the unincorporated Study Area would §enerate potentially significant amounts of particulate matter (dust) and substantial amounts of other air pollutants that could cause both health and nuisance impacts. The EIR proposes a series of mitigation measures to off-set these impacts to levels considered less than si§nificant. These mitigation measures include controlling the dust resulting from site preparation and construction activities in the same fashion as described for project specific impacts above. It also sug§ests that reasonable and feasible measures to reduce air pollutant emissions from automobiles be imposed on future development in the Study Area. These measures include transportation management and improvements, provision of transit services, construction of transit facilities, coordination of development design with transit facilities, allowance for and encouragement of mixed land uses, and provision of bicycle and pedestrian access and facilities. Orr Creek Bridge/Orchard Avenue Extension Environmenl31 [mpa~ Report Qb/Council Resolutio~ January S, 2005 However, the project approval does not require the City' to mitigate these impacts, because (1) CEQA requires a discussion, but not the mitigation of growth-inducing'impacts and (2) even if the City were required to mitigate these groWth-inducing impacts, these Study Area properties are outside the City limits, and the City lacks the legal authority to mitigate impacts in the unincorporated area. (See CEQA Guidelines Section 151264(a)(5).) The mitigation measures discussed in the EIR will provide guidance to the County of Mendocino in mitigating these impacts, when it evaluates projects proposed for that area. The City has negotiated the Land Use Agreement with the County which partially mitigates these growth-inducing impacts by requiring the County to evaluate them in compliance with CEQA. 12. Noise. Project Specific Impacts: The E1~R determined that the construction of the project would cause potentially significant adverse noise impacts in the area. To reduce the noise impacts to levels considered less than significant, the E1~R proposes a number of reasonable and feasible mitigation measures. These measures include limiting noise-generating construction equipment to certain days and times, properly muffling and maintaining all construction equipment powered by internal combustion engines, locating any stationary noise-generating equipment as far as practical from nearby residences, and notifying all neighboring property owners within 500-feet of the construction site of the construction schedule. The City Council commits to these mitigation measures. The City Council finds that these mitigation measures will avoid or reduce to insignificance the adverse environmental effects on noise. Growth-[nducinq Impacts: The EIR determined that future construction activities, in the -, unincorporated Study Area would generate potentially significant amounts of noise that would adversely impact neighboring residential areaS. Tt also concluded that future development would increase noise levels on Orchard Avenue and Brush Street to potentially significant levels, which would adversely impact residents living along the west side of Orchard Avenue between Clara Orr Creek Bridge/Orchard Avenue Extension Environmental Impact Report City Council Resolution January 5, 2005 Avenue and Orr Creek. The EIR proposes a series of mitigation measures to off-set these impacts to levels considered less than significant. These mitigation measures include the same mitigation measures described for project specific impacts above, as well as reducing the speed limit near residences, utilizing rubberized or open-grade asphalt, and constructing a sound barrier on the west side of Orchard Avenue south from the bridge maintenance ramp to Ford Street. This sound barrier could be an earthen berm, a wall, or a combination of the two. These potentially significant adverse noise impacts would occur within the City Limits. Therefore, the City Council commits to the proposed mitigation measures, if cooperation from the land owner along the west side of Orchard Avenue can be attained. However, for noise impacts within the unincorporated Study Area, the project approval does not require the City to mitigate these impacts, because (1) CEQA requires a discussion, but not the mitigation of growth-inducing impacts and (2) even if the City were required to mitigate these growth-inducing impacts, these Study Area properties are outside the City limits, and the City lacks the legal authority to mitigate impacts in the unincorporated area. (See CEQA Guidelines Section 151264(a)(5).) The mitigation measures discussed in the Ei~R will provide guidance to the County of Mendocino in mitigating these impacts, when it evaluates projects proposed for that area. The City has negotiated the Land Use Agreement with the County which partially mitigates these growth- inducing impacts by requiring the County to evaluate them in compliance with CEQA. 13. Fire Protection. Growth-[nducin_q Impacts: The E[R concludes that future development in the unincorporated Study Area would increase the calls for service for the Ukiah Valley Fire District. The E[R proposes a series of mitigation measures to off-set these impacts to levels considered less than significant. These mitigation measures include requiring sprinlder systems to be installed in all new buildings, new hydrant construction, the extension of water mains with adequate fire flow, adherence to State law for the storage and use of hazardous materials, and requiring project applicants to pay pro rata Orr O'eek Bridge/Orchard Avenue Extension Environmental Impact Report City CounOI Resolution January S, 2005 l0 shares of the expenses of adding new equipment/personnel to serve the project. The document also suggests that the County adopt mitigation fees for the Fire District, and that if the City decides to annex Study Area properties, it should confer with the UVFD to determine revenue-sharing procedures to minimize fiscal effects on the UVFE). The E[R notes that a 2-acre parcel in the Study Area (southeast corner) is situated within the City limits, and that the above mitigation measures, excluding County adoption of mitigation fees, should be imposed on new development in this area. For the 2-acre property within the Study Area that is situated in the City limits, the City Council commits to the applicable mitigation measures contained in the E[R, and concludes that they will eliminat.e or reduce identified adverse impacts to levels considered less than significant. For mitigation measures in the unincorporated Study Area, the project approval does not require the City to mitigate these impacts, because (1) CEQA requires a discussion, but not the mitigation of growth-inducing impacts and (2) even if the City were required to mitigate these growth-inducing impacts, these Study Area properties are outside the City limits, and the City lacks the legal authority to mitigate impacts in the unincorporated area. (See CEQA Guidelines Section 151264(a)(5).) The mitigation measures discussed in the E~R will provide guidance to the County of Mendocino in mitigating these impacts, when it evaluates projects proposed for that area. The City has negotiated the Land Use Agreement with the County which partially mitigates these growth- inducing impacts by requiring the County to evaluate them in compliance with CEQA. 14. Police Protection. Growth-Inducing Impacts: Future buildout in the unincorporated Study Area would significantly increase the demand for police response from the County Sheriff's Department. The E[R proposes a series of mitigation measures to off-set these impacts to levels considered less than significant. These mitigation measures i"nclude requiring that development permit applications to be referred to the Sheriff's Department, .who would establish final conditions regarding security, lighting, roadway access, building and parking lot security, signing, addressing, and other measures to ensure safety Orr Creek Bridge/Orchard Avenue Extension Environmental Impact Report aty Coundl Resolution January 5, 2005 standards, l~t also suggests that as the County revises its General Plan, it consider the adoption of a Police Service Mitigation Fee for new development. For the small 2-acre piece of property in the southeast corner of the Study Area or if the City annexes property in the Study Area, the E1~R proposes that development permit applications shall be referred to the City Police Department for the same review as described for the County Sheriff's Department above. It also proposes that in this case, the City Police Department monitor the number of calls for assistance in this area, and if the calls begin to affect the ability of the Department to provide satisfactory service, additional police officers must be hired. The City commits to these mitigation measures, and concludes that they will eliminate or reduce identified adverse impacts to levels considered less than significant. For mitigation measures in the unincorporated Study Area, the project approval does not require the City to mitigate these impacts, because (1) CEQA requires a discussion, but not the mitigation of growth-inducing impacts and (2) even if the City were required to mitigate these growth-inducing impacts, these Study Area properties are outside the City limits, and the City lacks the legal authority to mitigate impacts in the unincorporated area. (See CEQA Guidelines Section 151264(a)(5).) The mitigation measures discussed in the E1~R will provide guidance to the County of Mendocino in mitigating these impacts, When it evaluates projects proposed for that area. The City has negotiated the Land Use Agreement with the County which partially mitigates these growth- inducing impacts by requiring the County to evaluate them' in compliance with CEQA. 15. Sewage Disposal. Growth-Inducing l~mpacts: The EIR concludes that future development in the Study Area, including the recently proposed Rural Communities Housing Development Corporation ("RCHDC'~) project, could generate approximately 67,500 gallons of wastewater per day. This could potentially have an adverse impact on the wastewater treatment plant. The EIR proposes to mitigate this potentially significant adverse environmental impact by requiring the Sanitation District or City (if proposed Orr Creek Bridge/Orchard Avenue Extension Environment31 Impact Report Qty Council Re~:~lution January 5, 2005 12 development is in the City limits) to confirm that the plant has the capacity to serve each proposed project prior to approval of any future development proposals. ]:t also requires that: (1) future development include water conservation fixtures, (2) sewage collectors be sized and constructed per District or City requirements, (3) all proposed development pay the prevailing connections fees, (4) all heavy commercial uses be required to meet pre-treatment requirements, and (4) no future hook-ups be approved unless there is adequate treatment and disposal capacity. As these mitigation measures apply to the City, the City Council commits to implementing and monitoring them, and concludes that they will eliminate or reduce the potentially significant impacts to levels considered less than significant. For mitigation measures in the unincorporated Study Area, the project approval does not require the City to mitigate these impacts, because (:[) CEQA requires a discussion, but not the mitigation of growth-inducing impacts and (2) even if the City were required to mitigate these growth-inducing impacts, these Study Area properties are outside the City limits, and the City lacks the legal authority to mitigate impacts in the unincorporated area. (See CEQA Guidelines Section 151264(a)(5).) The mitigation measures discussed in the E]:R will provide guidance to the County of Mendocino in mitigating these impacts, when it evaluates projects proposed for that area. The City has negotiated the Land Use Agreement with the County which partially mitigates these growth- inducing impacts by requiring the County to evaluate them in compliance with CEQA. :1.6. Public Water. Growth-]:nducinq Impacts: Future development of the Study Area would require approximately 199,900 gallons of water per day. The E~[R concludes that this represents a potentially significant adverse impact on the Millview County Water District, which may not have the capacity to serve the build-out of the area. The E]:R also concludes that future development in the Study Area would require the extension of water mains throughout the Study Area. This also represents a potentially significant adverse impact. The E]:R proposes a series of mitigation measures to off-set these Orr Creek Bddge/Orchard Avenue Extension Environmental Impact Report Oty Council Resolution ~anuary S, 2005 impacts to levels considered less than significant. These mitigation measures include allowing future development only if an adequate water supply is available to serve the proposed projects, and installing a new water main of 1_0 to 12 inches in diameter to the north end of the-Study Area. The E:[R proposes that each applicant be required to pay its fair share of water system improvements required to serve its property. ]:f public water is requested of the City for development in the unincorporated Study Area, the City shall not Commit to serve the development unless it has adequate water supply to do so. The City commits to this mitigation measure, and concludes that it will reduce, but not necessarily to insignificance, this potentially significant impact. To the extent that mitigation of these impacts requires action by Mendocino County or Miilview County Water District, the project approval does not require the City to mitigate these impacts, because (1) CEQA requires a discussion, but not the mitigation of growth-inducing impacts and (2) even if the City were required to mitigate these growth-inducing impacts, the City lacks the legal authority to mitigate these impacts in the unincorporated area. (See CEQA Guidelines Section 151_264(a)(5).) The mitigation meaSbres discussed in the E]:R will provide guidance to the County of Mendocino in mitigating theSe impacts, when it evaluates projects proposed for that area. The City has negotiated the Land Use Agreement with the County which partially mitigates these growth- inducing impacts by requiring the County to evaluate them in compliance with CEQA. 1_7. Schools. Growth-Inducing Impacts: The EIR notes that over the. past five years, school enrollment has declined approximately 10%. It notes that while some of the local schools have some capacity remaining, others are currently at capacity levels. The EIR concludes that build-out of the Study Area would have a potentially significant adverse impact on the Ukiah Unified School District be adding approximately 279 students. The EIR indicates that this impact would be mitigated to a level considered less than significant by future developers paying the required developer mitigation fees established and collected by the School District. ]:t also suggests that the School District monitor Orr Creek Bridge/Orchard Avenue Extension Environmental Impact Report City Council Resolution January 5, 2005 student enrollment, and if enrollment exceeds capacity, the District should request that the governing governmental agency establish additional school mitigation fees, to the degree allowed 'by State law. To the extent that mitigation of these impacts within the unincorporated Study Area requires action by Ukiah Unified School District or Mendocino County, the project approval does not require the City to mitigate these impacts, because (1) CEQA requires a discussion, but not the mitigation of growth~inducing impacts and (2) even if the City were required to mitigate these growth-inducing impacts, these Study Area properties are outside the City limits, and the City lacks the legal authority to mitigate impacts in the unincorporated area. (See CEQA Guidelines Section 151264(a)(5).) The mitigation measures discussed in the E[R will provide guidance to the County of Mendocino and Ukiah Unified School District in mitigating these impacts. The City has negotiated the Land Use Agreement with the County which partially mitigates these growth-inducing impacts by requiring the County to evaluate them in compliance with CEQA. 18. Solid Waste. Growth-]:nducing ]:mpacts: The E]:R determined that future development in the unincorporated Study Area would generate a substantial amount of solid waste that is considered a potentially significant adverse impact on solid waste collection and processing services. To mitigate this impact, the El:R-proposes to require all businesses to recycle per the requirements of AB 939, and that this recycling program be formalized in a recYcl!ng statement that is approved by the County and/or the Hendocino Solid Waste Management Authority. ]:t also proposes that future developers be required to recycle scrap timber and metal products, wherever feasible, and that future buildings be insulated with recycled material, if feasible. Project approval does not require the City to mitigate these impacts, because (:t) CEQA requires a discussion, but not the mitigation of growth-inducing impacts and (2) even if the City were required to mitigate these growth-inducing impacts, these Study Area properties are outside the City Orr Creek Bridge/Orchard Avenue Extension Environmental Impact Report City Coundl Resolution 3anuary 5, 2005 limits, and the City lacks the legal authority to mitigate impacts in the unincorporated area. (See CEQA Guidelines Section 151264(a)(5).) The mitigation measures discussed in the EIR will provide guidance to the County of Mendocino in mitigating these impacts, when it evaluates projects proposed for that area. The City 'has negotiated the Land Use Agreement with the County which partially mitigates these growth-inducing impacts by requiring the County to evaluate them .in compliance with CEQA. 19. Energy Use. Growth-Inducing ]~mpacts: The EIR concludes that the operation Of future businesses would require the use of substantial amounts of energy that would represent a potentially significant adverse impact on the environment. The EIR proposes a series of mitigation measures to off-set these impacts to levels considered less than significant. These mitigation measures include enforcing the energy efficiency standards contained in the California State Building Code, Title 24 of the Code of Regulations on ali future development in the Study Area. l~t also proposes that all future buildings be heated with "clean air" heat sources, that electrical transmission lines and gas lines be extended through the Study Area per PG&E requirements, and that solar access be protected for all future development. _ Project approval does not require the City to mitigate these impacts, because (1) CEQA requires a discussion, but not the mitigation of growth-inducing impacts and (2) even if the City were required to mitigate these growth-inducing !mpacts, these Study Area properties are outside the City limits, and the City lacks the legal authority to mitigate impacts in the unincorporated area. (See CEQA Guidelines Section 151264(a)(5).) The mitigation measures discussed in the EIR will provide guidance to the County of Mendocino in mitigating these impacts, when it evaluates projects proposed for that area. The City has negotiated the. Land Use Agreement with the County which partially mitigates these growth-inducing impacts by requiring the County to evaluate them in compliance with CEQA. On- Creet( Bridge/Orchard Avenue Extension Environmental Impact Report Ob/Coundl Resolution .lanuary 5, 2005 16 20. Recreation. Growth-]:nducing ]:mpacts: Future development in the Study Area will substantially increase the demand for parks and recreation facilities, and the EIR concludes that this represents a potentially · significant adverse impact on local parks and recreation facilities. The E]:R proposes that the mitigation measure (/lesthet/£s) suggesting that a coordinated site development plan or specific plan be required for the Study Area to include provisions for public parks and trails. ~[t suggests further that the public parks and trails could be incorporated into the site development or specific plan component for open space recommended in the discussion of Aesthe&'cs below. The E]:R proposes a series of mitigation measures to off-set these impacts to levels considered less than significant. Project approval does not require the City to mitigate these impacts, because (1) CEQA requires a discussion, but not the mitigation of growth-inducing impacts and (2) even if the City were required to mitigate these growth-inducing impacts, these Study Area properties are outside the City limits, and the City lacks the legal authority to mitigate impacts in the unincorporated area. (See CEQA Guidelines Section 151264(a)(5).) The mitigation measures discussed in the E]:R will provide guidance to the County of Mendocino in mitigating these impacts, when it evaluates projects proposed for that area. The City has negotiated the Land Use Agreement with the County which partially mitigates these growth-inducing impacts by requiring the County to evaluate them in compliance with CEQA. 21. Land Use. Growth-~[ndudng ]:mpacts: The E]:R concludes that the future development of the Study Area could be inconsistent with the Ukiah Valley Area Plan because the Plan calls for all future development to include open space, a stream access plan, have an attractive US Highway 101 viewshed, etc. To mitigate this potentially significant adverse land use and aesthetic impact, the E~R suggests that a Specific Plan,be prepared for the Study Area prior to allowing new development. On 3anuary 15, 2005, the City Council adopted alternative language for this mitigation: Orr Creek Bridge/Orchard Avenue Extension Environmental Impact Report City Council Resolution .lanuary $, 2005 Prior to approving any new development in the Study Area, the County or City (depending on which entity has jurisdiction) shall require the development and approval of a comprehensive planning document for the entire area. Later under the same mitigation measure, the Council added: This comprehensive planning document should be prepared for and adopted by the County (or the City if the area is annexed to the City) prior to approving new development. Project approval does not require the City to mitigate these impacts, because (1) CEQA requires a discussion, but not the mitigation of growth-inducing impacts and (2) even if the City were required to mitigate these growth-inducing impacts, these Study Area prope~ies are outside the City limits, and the City lacks the legal authority to mitigate impacts in the unincorporated area. (See CEQA Guidelines Section 151264(a)(5).) The mitigation measures discussed in the EIR will provide guidance to the County of Mendocino in mitigating these impacts, when it evaluates projects proposed for that area. The City has negotiated the Land Use Agreement with the County which partially mitigates these growth-inducing impacts by requiring the County to evaluate them in compliance with CEQA. 22. Aesthetics. Growth-Inducing l~mpacts: The E[R determined that future development of the approximate 95-acre unincorporated Study Area would substantially alter views in the area, and that this represented a potentially significant adverse impact. To mitigate this impact, the EI~R suggested that a site development or specific plan be developed and approved before any new development occurs. The City Council certified the E]:R with the mitigation measure described in the discussion of Land Use above. Project approval does not require the City to mitigate these impacts, because (1) CEQA requires a discussion, but not the mitigation of growth-inducing impacts and (2) even if the City were required to mitigate these growth-inducing impacts, these Study Area properties are outside the City Orr Creek Bridge/Orchard Avenue Extension Environmental Impact Report CiLy Coundl Resolution ~L 8 .lanuary 5, 2005 limits, and the City lacks the legal authority to mitigate impacts in the unincorporated area. (See CEQA Guidelines Section 151264(a)(5).) The mitigation measures discussed in the E]:R will provide guidance to the County of Mendocino in mitigating these impacts, when it evaluates projects proposed for that area. The City has negotiate, d the Land Use Agreement with the County which partially .mitigates these growth-inducing impacts by requiring the County to evaluate them in compliance with CEQA. 23. Traffic and Circulation. Growth-Inducing Impacts: The E]:R concluded that there would be potentially significant adverse impacts to traffic and circulation resulting from the extension of Orchard Avenue to Brush Street and up to Ford Road, and from Study Area build-out. The intersections that would be impacted are North State Street/U.S. 101 Northbound Ramps; North State Street/Low Gap Road-Brush Street, East Perkins Street/Orchard Avenue, East Perkins Street/U.S. 101 Northbound Ramps, East Perkins Street/U.S. 101 Southbound Ramps-Pomeroy Avenue, Gobbi Street/U.S. 101 Southbound Ramps, Orchard Avenue/Ford Street, North State Street/Ford Street, Orchard Avenue/Clara Avenue, Orchard Avenue/Gobbi Street, and the East Perkins Street Corridor (Orchard Avenue to U.S. 101 Northbound Ramps). The E1~R recommends a series of mitigation measures designed to reduce the impacts at these intersections to levels considered less than significant. These mitigation measures are listed on pages 38-42 of the Zmpact and/vl/&'~at/on Summary Tab/e contained in the DEl:R, and are incorporated herein by reference. The City Council finds that these mitigation measures would reduce the impacts at these intersections to levels considered less than significant. The E]:R also concluded that future development in the Study Area will substantially increase the demand for alternative means of transportation. Mitigation measures are proposed that would reduce this impact to a level considered less than significant. These mitigation measures include the construction of bike lanes, routes, and sidewalks, requiring bicycle parking facilities with new Orr Creek Bridge/Orchard Avenue Extension Environmental Impact Report City Coundl Resolution January S, 2005 19 development, and the development of bus stops, bus turn-outs, and new transit routes. The EIR also concludes that future development in the Study Area would require wider curb-to-curb Study Area roadways, and that this represented a potentially significant adverse impact. The EIR proposes mitigation measures that would reduce this impact to a level considered less than significant. These mitigation measures include reserving right-of-way along Orchard Avenue and Brush Street, requiring shared driveways where feasible, and the development of a monitoring program as build-out occurs to determine if fewer improvements would actually be appropriate. The Road Improvement and Land Use Agreement (Exhibit B) requires IVlendocino County and the City to consider the EIR as well as the Mendocino County Council of Governments study of traffic impacts in the Study Area in devising traffic mitigations for development in the Study Area. The Road Improvement and Land Use Agreement requires the County and the City to evaluate and mitigate the individual and cumulative traffic impacts of each project approved for development in the Study Area and to make each project pay its proportional share of the cost of these mitigations. The Road Improvement and Land Use Agreement imposes binding legal obligations on the City and the County to mitigate these impacts. The City Council finds that the implementation of the Land Use Agreement will mitigate adverse traffic impacts to a level that is not considered significant. FI'NDTNGS REGARDTNG UNMZT'TGATED ADVERSE TMPACT The EIR has identified one significant growth-inducing impact that cannot be successfully mitigated or avoided with build-out of the Study Area. Build-out traffic would result in insufficient vehicular storage capacity on East Perkins Street between Orchard Avenue and the Southbound Highway 101 ramps to accommodate eastbound traffic. This impact does not result from the project itself but rather from the growth-inducing impacts of the project. While the City Council may not be required to mitigate growth-inducing impacts, Orr Creek Bridge/Orchard Avenue Extension Environmental Impact Report City Coun~l Resolution .lanuary 5, 2005 2O it nevertheless elects to make the finding required by Public Resources Code Section 21081 and 14 California Code of Regulations ("CCR") Sections 15091 that "[s]pecific economic, legal, social, technological or other considerations.., make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the E]:R.' (§15091(a)(,3).) For the following reasons, the City Council finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological or other considerations make infeasible the project alternatives identified in the E]:R. A. The Project Objectives. The primary objectives of the proposed project, as explained initially in the Negative Declaration for the K-Hart Project, see Resolution No. 94-47, on file with the City Planning Department, are to provide a north-south arterial street alternative to State Street, which will improve City-wide traffic circulation, and to reduce traffic through nearby residential neighborhoods along Ford Street and Clara Avenue. The project will also provide a southern access to the Study Area which will facilitate traffic flow as that area develops. B. Generally, Project Alternatives are Unavailable and :Infeasible. The traffic impact that cannot be mitigated results from development within the Study Area; not from the construction of the bridge. Any bridge and extension of Orchard Avenue that facilitates development within the Study Area will have the same growth-inducing impacts. Accordingly, there are no project alternatives that would avoid or render less significant the one unmitigated traffic impact from that development. Only limitations on the development itself could reduce this traffic impact. Since this development will take place within the unincorporated area, it is not legally feasible for the City to impose such limitations. C. ]:nfeasibility of Project Alternatives Discussed in E]:R. The follOwing social, economic, legal, technological, and other considerations make the three alternatives identified in the E]:R infeasible. The three alternatives are: 1) no project alternative; 2) alternative location; and 3) free-span bridge. On' Creek 8ddge/Orchard Avenue Extension Environmental [mpact Report City Council Resolution .lanuary 5, 2005 21 1. No Project Alternative. The no project alternative is not feasible, because it would not achieve any of the project objectives, including the reduction of existing traffic congestion problems (See DE[R p. 178). Moreover, none of the project specific impacts is significant and adverse a~er mitigation. . 2. Alternative Location. Because the bridge and roadway extension are proposed as an "enhancement" for a previously approved project in the City, there is no alternative location where these improvements could be made. There would not be traffic congestion relief south of the Study Area if the bridge and roadway improvements were constructed elsewhere. Thus, an alternative location alternative is not feasible for the specific improvements proposed. There is also no alternative location for constructing a roadway extension into the area. Orchard Avenue is the logical road to be extended, and is so recommended in the Ukiah General Plan. IVloving the bridge to the east or the west would not reduce or render less significant the unmitigated traffic impact. Moreover, the road extension cannot be moved to the east of the proposed location, because Highway 101 is about 300-feet away. ]:t cannot be moved to the west, because of existing residential development to the west of the proposed location. 3. Free-Span Bridge. This alternative would include a free-span bridge at the site. According to the calculations prepared by the project engineer, a 95-foot long free-span bridge would need to be supported by girders as deep as four-feet. Because the bottom of the bridge must be one-foot above the 100-year flood elevation, the bottom of the free-span bridge with four-foot deep supports would need to be at least 7.3 feet above the existing ground surface at the abutment locations. This alternative would have no affect on the unmitigated traffic impact. ~[t would avoid driving of pile bents within the stream channel, but the adverse environmental impacts of constructing these pile bents can be reduced to a less than significant level by mitigation measures already included in the proposed project and the E]:R. The alternative would have slightly greater Orr Creek Bridge/Orchard Avenue Extension Environmental Impact Report City Coundl Resolution January 5, 2005 22 potential erosion and visual impacts. There is no substantial environmental advantage to this alternative, and it is not considered environmentally superior to the project as proposed. The City Council finds that the proposed project represents the environmentally superior alternative. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATZONS For the reasons as further stated below, the Cib/Council finds that the economic, social, · technological or other benefits of the project outweigh the unavoidable environmental risk arising upon build-out within the Study Area of insufficient vehicular storage capacity on East Perkins Street between Orchard Avenue and the Southbound Highway 101 ramps to accommodate eastbound traffic. The project will reduce existing traffic impacts on Ford and Clara Streets within the adjacent residential area known as the "Wagonsellers' Addition." ]~t will provide an alternative to the State Street for north and south bound traffic within the City, thereby improving traffic conditions on State Street. In fact, the development of that alternative route for traffic is identified as a goal in the City of Ukiah General Plan, adopted on December 6, 1995 ("GP'~, and could lead to an extension of Orchard Avenue to Ford Road with additional long term benefits for traffic circulation in the City. (See GP, p. V.5.30-38.) In addition, Ford and Orr Streets as well as Brush Street already provide access to the Study Area, allowing for some development in the Study Area without the construction of the project. The project will provide an alternative access to the Study Area that will avoid or lessen adverse traffic impacts on Orr and Ford Streets within the Wagonsellers Addition. At the same time, the project will provide superior traffic circulation within the Study Area as it develops. These benefits outweigh the unavoidable adverse traffic impact on East Perkins Street. The · Study Area could build out, if the project were not constructed, creating the same traffic impact on Orr Creek Bridge/Orchard Avenue Extension Environmental Impact Report Oty Council Resolution ~]anuary 5, 2005 23 - -, -- ~, $~udy Are~ ............ : (~ Hydrant Existing Buildings on ~ the StudyArea: (refe~ text in Section 1.4) The alignment of the Orchard Avenue Extension is conceptual. The actual alignment will be determined when project applications ~or the Study Area are submitted ORCHAJ~D AVENUE. 44aries t~rE~s~ Pear Orchard BRUNNER STREET ~'"" 4 ORR ~ ORR STREET Figure 3 STUDY AREA, PROPOSED CIRCULATION AT BUILDOUT, AND EXISTING LAND USES ON THE STUDY AREA CEQA Compliance 1. Within the scope of LAFCO's specific policies and purposes, and as stated in Section 21001 of the Public Resources Code, LAFCO shall be guided by state policy when considering projects. Those State policies that will be furthered are: · Develop and maintain a high ,quality environment now and in the future, and  take all action necessary to protect, rehabilitate, and enhance the environmental quality of the state. · Take all action necessary to provide the people of this state with clean air and water, enjoyment of aesthetic, natural, scenic and historic environmental . qualities and freedom from excessive noise. , 2 ,t~~ Prevent the elimination of fish or wildlife species due to man s activities. Ensure that fish and wildlife populations do not drop below self-perpetuating ] levels, and preserve for future generations representations of all plant and animal communities and examples of the major periods of California history. Ensure the long-term protection of the environment consistent with the provision of a decent home and suitable living environment for every Californian, shall be the guiding criterion in public decisions. Create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony to fulfill the social and economic requirements of present and future generations. · Require governmental agencies at all levels to develop standards and procedures necessary to protect environmental quality. · Require governmental agencies at all levels to consider qualitative factors as well as economic and technical factors and long term benefits and costs, in addition to short term benefits and costs, and to consider alternatives to . proposed actions affecting the environment. olic¥ Regarding Significant and Adverse Environmental Impacts When evaluating environmental impacts during the Initial Study process, LAFCO may identify such impacts as significant and adverse if: · . Buildout of the proposed project may cause service levels to decline below established standards, costs of service provision to rise substantially to the detriment of service levels, or cause those currently receiving service to receive reduced or inadequate services, especially when such change may cause adverse health and safety or other physical impacts. Buildout of the proposed project may cause the infrastructure capacity of a service provider to exceed planned and safe limits especially when such change may cause adverse health and safety or other physical impacts. . Inclusion of the proposed territory into the boundaries of the service agency exceeds the ability of the service provider to provide service to the proposed or 4~ o . . . o 10. existing development within that territory with either existing or proposed service capacity. The proposed project includes or plans for infi'astructure capacity, especially water and sewer lines, that exceed the needs of the proposed project and may be used to serve areas not presently planned for development, especially those containing prime agricultural and resource land, mineral, sensitive plant and wildlife or other important resources. The proposed project could cause health and safety or physical impacts because a service provider is incapable'of providing service, the proposal has an illogical boundary, or elements needed to provide service (water supply, treatment facilities, equipment, energy) are not available, or stressed beyond capacity. The proposed project may result in substantial loss of prime agricultural land or important open space, timberland, mining or other resource lands. Land use zones adopted by a city or the county shall be used to judge appropriate land use. The proposed project may cause premature, ill-planned, illogical, or inefficient conversion of prime agricultural, timberland, open space, mineral resource or other important resource areas not presently planned for development. The proposed project is substantially inconsistent with applicable Sphere of Influence Plans, General Plan or Specific Plan, area service plans, phased land use plans of any city or county, or resource conservation plans of the state or federal government. The proposed project may induce substantial growth on important agricultural, resource and open space lands because it would: · Permit the extension of, or require, infrastructure such as flood control levees or water diversions, electrical, water or sewer lines, especially tnmk lines, roadways or public facilities that would permit new development in a substantial area currently constrained fi.om development. · Encourage or foster development by permitting uses that adversely impact adjacent agricultural, timberland, mining or other resource operations, significantly increase property values of adjacent or proximate agricultural or resource land, or remove man made or natural buffers between urban and agricultural, timber, mining or conservation uses. · Be adversely and substantially inconsistent with the agricultural, open space, resource conservation or preservation, growth management, or other plans or policies of General Plan or Specific Plan of the land use jurisdiction responsible for the project site or vicinity. The proposed project, when considered in conjunction with other recent, present and reasonably foreseeable projects, may cause significant adverse cumulative impacts. 10 11. 12. 13. There is no immediate need for service and the proposed project adversely affects important public resources or the public health and safety The project would adversely impact animal or plant species listed as, or determined to be, endangered, rare, or threatened as provide in Section 15380 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Consistent with Section 21002 of CEQA, it shall be the policy of LAFCO of Mendocino County that no project should be approved as proposed, if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects. 14. In the evem that specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible project alternative or mitigations which will avoid or substantially lessen significant effects on the environment, individual projects may be approved in spite of one or more significam effects. (Statemem of Overriding Considerations with findings) Hearint~s and Notices o . . 4~ . LAFCO will not conduct hearings on Negative Declarations and Mitigated Negative Declarations separate from the project hearing. When LAFCO is the Lead Agency,'LAFCO will conduct a separate hearing for purposes of receiving comments from the public and agencies on Draft EIRs. The hearing may be conducted by the Commission or the Executive Officer if so directed by the Commission. The hearing on the Final EIR will be conducted on the same day as the hearing for the project, previous to the hearing on the project. A Notice of Iment to adopt or consider a Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration or Draft EIR shall be Provided to the public not less than twenty days in advance of the hearing. Posting and publication of notice for any documents for environmental review shall be according to the requirements of C-K-H. Consultants lo When LAFCO is the Lead Agency, the Environmental Coordinator may select a consultant for a project as he considers appropriate. 11 East Perkins Street with no compensating project benefits. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 5th day of January 2005 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Crane, McCowen, Rodin, and Mayor Ashiku NOES: Councilmember Baldwin ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ' ~a~'k Ashiku, Mayor Marie Ulvila, City Clerk Orr C_xeek Bridge/Orchard Avenue Extension Environmental Impact Report Qty Council Resolution January 5, 2005 24 AGENDA ITEM NO: ~;:~ MEETING DATE: September 7, 2005 SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE APPOINTMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE TO THE MENDOCINO LIBRARY BOARD Councilmember Baldwin had offered to be the Council's Library Board representative over the summer months, but now that he is back in school, he will be unable to attend the Board meetings. According to Jay Lewis, the Chair of the Library Board, the meetings are held on the third Thursday of the month, at 1:00 P.M. for approximately an hour-and-a-half. During the winter and spring months, the meetings are held in Ukiah. Over the summer, they are held in various locations including the coastal region for at least one meeting. Mr. Lewis is requesting a Councilmember be selected for representation on the Library Board, beginning with the September meeting. RECOMMENDED ACTION: the Library Board. Discuss and possibly select a Council representative to ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: Citizens Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Jay Lewis Library Board Candace Horsley, City Manager Approved: Candace Horsley, City M~~ger AGENDA iteM NO: ~ C MEETING DATE: September 7, 2005 SUMMARY REPORT SUB3ECT: DISCUSSION REGARDING VARIOUS INLAND WATER AND POWER COMMISSION ISSUES Vice-Mayor Baldwin, representative to the Inland Water and Power Commission (IWPC), has requested that this item be agendized. The IWPC has asked each agency to discuss several topics and before the IWPC Commission makes final decision. 1) Russian River Watershed Association (RRWA) Membership: The IWPC members are considering whether they would like to stay as members of the RRWA. Attached please find a memo from the City Manager that outlines some of the benefits for IWPC that was given to them to take to their various agency boards for discussion. The City of Ukiah has two memberships with the RRWA, one through a direct agency membership and then through the IWPC. We receive many benefits due to our affiliation and joint participation regarding our NPDES permit requirements and our sewer treatment plant. However, the IWPC is formulated by a group of water districts, some of which do not have NPDES permit requirements nor do any of them run sewer wastewater treatment plants. There is a very obvious and direct benefit to the City of Ukiah whether the IWPC continues their membership or not. The level of financial commitment for IWPC with the RRWA for this fiscal year is $9,481 which is split four ways. RECOMMENDED ACTION: direction to City Representative Discuss the items requested by IWPC and provide ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: None Citizens Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Attachments: Vice-Mayor Baldwin Candace Horsley, City Manager 1. Benefits of RRWA Membership 2. Agenda Item RegardingCreek Studies Approved: Candace Hors'ley, City Page 2 Inland Water and Power Commission - Vadous Issues - September 7, 2005 2) 3) Water Supply Studies on various Creeks: The City Council approved $2,000 towards funding on various creeks in the region, to determine potential water supply sources. One study was completed on Busch Creek in Potter Valley and the yield is approximately 7,085 acre feet in an average year. Any consideration for use of this water would involve several issues: 1_) Application to the State for a water right permit would be around $106,000 plus an annual fee. 2) ]~n order to store the water, a reservoir site would need to be studied, CEQA reviewed, State and local requirements satisfied and then construction. There were five creeks originally considered by ]~WPC for study. The question is whether we wish to continue studying some of the other creeks that were slated as potential candidates for study, which include: Robinson, Ackerman, York and Hensley at the cost of roughly $1,500 each; they all are blueline, which means they have viable stream flow and endangered species are currently or capable of living in the creeks. Miscellaneous: City Council had previously requested information regarding the IWPC's involvement with the feasibility study for the Coyote Dam project. The estimated cost for the feasibility study is $5 million with $2,5 million coming from the local sponsors. The sponsor-cost could be less if the Corps of Engineer determines there are construction issues that are under the Corps' jurisdictional authority and therefore, should be covered entirely by the Corps budget. One of the other issues that was discussed by Council was whether it was possible to form an agreement for percentage of benefit if additional water was available through raising the dam. Most agencies on IWPC are not willing to sign an agreement regarding that benefit until they find out what the scope of the project and how much the estimated cost for that project would be. The Corp has stated that the current spillway, which is on the southern end of the lake, may not be as stable as they would like, and if they need to reconstruct this spillway to be broader and higher, this could potentially add 20,000 acre feet to the reservoir. However, that 20,000 acre feet most likely would belong to the current water-right holders of the lake water, which are the Russian River Flood Control District and Sonoma County Water Agency. Page 3 Inland Water and Power Commission - Various Issues - September 7, 2005 If the dam was raised, IWPC would most likely be a partner in the construction, of which 75% would be paid for by the Corp. Since there is no determined project at this point, there are no real estimates of costs though some figures that had been tossed around several years ago are between $50 million and $75 million. Determination of whether the spillway needs repairs or whether the raising of the dam is a viable project will be determined by the feasibility study process. Once the feasibility study was completed and if there was a recommendation for raising the dam, IWPC would definitely be a participant and at that point, agreements would be determined for cost sharing. Attachment MEMORANDUM Date: To: From: Subject: August 9, 2005 IWPC Commissioners Candace Horsley, City Manager Benefits of RRWA membership 1. The RRWA has an Integrated Water IVlanagement Planning working group that is working to get IVlendocino and Sonoma County projects prioritized for regional funding under Prop 50 and future water bonds. Water rights and water supply issues will be of ongoing interest to this group. 2. The Outreach and Funding work group will be preparing materials which will be shared with all local agencies to usc granted the focus right now is on water quality, but future materials can focus on issues of specific interest to the ~IWPC if requests are made. 3. RRWA is starting a process for tracking legislation affecting water agencies and local government to provide to individual members. The most current information Will be made immediately available to all members. 4. The interaction is building consensus and regional support between Mendocino and Sonoma County agencies and water districts. S. We have struck a cooperative agreement for completing an Integrated Regional Water Management Plan. Consultant and SCWA are handling 90% of the workload that may be required by the State. 6. Plans are being made to track available funding sources and grants. 7. Hosted Russian River watershed regional meetings. The first one was for submitted NCIRWMP implementation projects, but cooperative effort public workshops in Mendocino County for RR issues would be very positive, 8, Held meetings with the Regional Board EO and staff--this is a voice for over 10 agencies that has power to it, 9, Initiated research and coordination for joint permitting documents and meetings Other Accomplishments: 1. Contributed to SUSMP guidelines development 2. Participated in the stormwater baseline survey and awareness training 3. Starting July 2005--mercury pollution prevention Attachment # ITEM NO: 10b. ~ MEETING DATE: October.l~, 2004 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF FUNDING ENGINEERING REVIEW OF UNNAMED WATERSHEDS The Inland Water and Power Commission has requested that each agency approve funding for engineer George Rau to study several creek watersheds in the Ukiah area and determine if there is sufficient flow to provide winter water run off for storage. The creeks that may be considered include Hensley, Robinson, Ackerman, York, and Busch Creek in Potter Valley which flows into 'the east fork of the Russian River. George Rau's estimate was approximately $1,500 per watershed. There are four agencies in the Inland Water and Power Commission, so if all five watersheds are reviewed this will mean approximately $2000 per agency. City representative to the IWPC, Vice-Mayor Baldwin, originally suggested the idea of these studies and would request Councils discussion and approval of this funding. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Discussion and approval of funding engineering review of unnamed watersheds ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: Direct Staff to take alternative action Citizens Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: N/A Phil Baldwin, Vice-Mayor Candace Horsley, City Manager IWCP N/A Approved: Candace Horsley, C~Manager 4:CAN/ASR.EngReviewUnnamedWatersheds 88:B4 7~7-4625681 NO COUNTIES ENGINEER PAGE 82 DATE; Jul_y ?. 2_004 Trar~mitted for'. J~ Approval ' --Tran~n_i~leClT_.vt~: i'"1Rel;~ular Mall Your Use/Info. TO: Janet Peull 743.1824 PROJECT: Yield Study in Unnamed Tributary kEF or NO.: ~UBJEOT: ' ' i~: '" 'Pot~htla'l'0ffstreem storage Volume ME~SAGE: FROM: JOB NO.: COPY TO: ' Georg~ Rau Janet: ;, . , Per our di$cueslOr~' ~m'e.time back, an 'order of magnitude" study Could be mac~e to get an idea if ol'~tream ~torage' C0uld'capture enough tflbutary waters during high winter flo~ ~ to make a fea~ibllity study worth considering. The order of magnitude study would have the, following components: ~> ~ i~,'~jrle tributary I~rloff area to an assl~me(~-~point of diversi3-~¥ u~illg~-USG-s · qued, eet ' . 2) Use available rainfall data to calculate the 'average" volume ol rainfall which falls tn the wateshed and, more critical, the dry year volume and drought year Volume, We would have to define "dry year" and I assume usir~g the 1976-77 as a drought year. 3) U~e available information to determine the amount of rainfall 'klst' to 'deep perc~lalton' in the watershed for each of the three conditions li.,~ted in ~ above. .. 4) .8abtract the amount of water which goes t~ deep percolation fr,)m the total to obtain a volume of mn-off for the three conditions listed in ~ a~,3ve. 5) Report the total estimated runoff. Then a~ume a 'beneficial u=,;' of 5% and 10% of the runoff for each of the conditions and report those vo umes. 6) The'. r~:mrt would be e one page summary of be factom dlscus~.ed above, "' concluding with the volume potentially "available' for'storage fo~ beneficial u~e.' I am assuming 6% I~ probably closer to what may ultimately be Permitted, but it would be Instructive to know what a 10% dive~.~ion may develop' also. m, ' '.~,: 'k; i~ ~ he estimated coat ~ aome preliminary discussion, researcil and preparation of a written ii ....~ ~0/~572004 ,, 08:04 707-4625S81 NO COUNTIES ENGINEER PAGE 83 P,, 02 Memorandum Continued _ ' ~ . Pa, ge 2 of 2 summary of results of the research, and attendance at one meeting to dlscus~ the report ....... is in the range of $15130 for each Watershed selected aa long as the watersheda we re small enough to '/it" into one rainfall region. A second rainfall region Would add about $500 to lt~e cost. If one of these cOhcept $~dies appeared to wan'ant a *feasibility study", then Ihere would be sigt~iftcant expense in deYelOping a dally runoff projection with attendant diver~h3n schedule, a conceptual idea of a location for an o~ite reservoir, some geometry and cost~ of the reservoir, a 'logical point of diver~ion with pump station concept, etc. I wanted to 113ake a clear distinction between the two levels or work. I think the first level of work described is adeq~Jate to decide if enything Is worth seriously studying. If you have questions, please give me a call. M/S Rodin/Andersen awarding bid for high voltage line clearing and tree trimming at various locations within the City of Ukiah to West Coast Arborists, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $40,000, carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Rodin, Andersen, Smith, Baldwin, and Mayor Larson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 10. NEW BUSINESS 10a. Discussion and Possible Action Regarding Russian River Flood Control District Supply Contract City Attorney Rapport advised that the matter would be discussed in Closed Session and that the purpose of the Closed Session is for the City Council to obtain legal advice from its water rights attorney by speaker phone with regard to the potential for litigation, and the attorney-client communication applies as part of the Brown Act. NEW BUSINESS ADDroval of Funding Engineering Review of Unnamed Watershed-~ anager Horsley advised that the Inland Water and Power Commission (IWPC) has requested that each agency approve funding for engineer George Rau to study several creek watersheds in the Ukiah area and determine if there is sufficient flow to provide winter water run off for storage. Mr. Rau's estimate was approximately $1,500 per watershed. There are four agencies in the IWPC, so if all five watersheds are reviewed, this will mean approximately $2,000 per agency. City representative to the IWPC, Vice-Mayor Baldwin, originally suggested the idea of these studies. Councilmember Baldwin read a letter from Mike Dillabaugh, Chief of Operations for this division, in which he responded to Ms. Pauley about the Army Corps of Engineers' recommendation to raise Coyote Dam. Councilmember Baldwin stated that it would be interesting to see how much water would be available from other drainage systems. He also questioned whether it would cost more to impound water. M/S Andersen/Smith approving funding of engineering review of watersheds, to be determined, not to exceed $2,000, carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Rodin, Andersen, Smith, Baldwin, and Mayor Larson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 10. NEW BUSINESS 10c. Council Approval for the City Manager and Public Utilities Director to Purchase Replacement Power Public Utilities Director Ziemianek explained that as a result of the loss of Western's contract on December 31, 2004, the City of Ukiah will need to replace approximately 21,100 megawatt-hours of energy spanning over 12 months during 2005. It is important the City firm up replacement power with suppliers as soon as possible. He provided a Power Point presentation to Council regarding the 2005 Need Evaluation, NCPA's pool of electric energy usage, electricity prices, and NCPA's market conditions. He also provided a summary of ISO and NCPA loads, natural gas sp~t ['narket, forward natural gas prices, and the electric price outlook. Regular Ukiah City Council Meeting October 20, 2004 Page 4 of 6 ITEM NO. ,_ 4;~O/ DATE: September 7, 2005 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT- FORD STREET/SIDNIE COURT NEIGHBORS The substance of this item will be discussed by Council in Closed Session. RECOMMENDED ACTION: N/S ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: N/A Citizen Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: N/A City Attorney Rapport Marie Ulvila, City Clerk ~ City Manager Horsley and City Attorney Rapport Candace Horsley, City Mana'~r ASR:CLosed Session item ITEM NO. ~:~ DATE: September 7, 2005 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT- NORTHERN CALIFORNIA RIVER WA TCH v. CITY OF UKIAH The substance of this. item will be discussed by Council in Closed Session. RECOMMENDED ACTION: N/S ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: N/A Citizen Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: N/A City Attorney Rapport Marie Ulvila, City Clerk ~ City Manager Horsley and City Attorney Rapport Candace Horsley, City Man~er ASR:Closed Session item